US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 165 of 291 · 8,722 total
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
GoPro successfully defended Patent 10,529,052 B2 when the PTAB denied Arashi Vision's IPR petition, citing advanced parallel ITC proceedings and overlapping claims.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The PTAB denied Digital Global Systems' request for rehearing of its inter partes review institution denial. The Board affirmed its original interpretation of claim language and found the cited prior art insufficient to overturn the decision.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
Digital Global Systems petitions to invalidate DeepSig’s 10,581,469 patent covering machine‑learning‑based radio predistortion. The challenger asserts obviousness over earlier AI‑enabled predistortion disclosures (Jüschke, Holt, and Dzierwa) under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The PTAB denied Digital Global Systems' IPR against DeepSig Inc.'s patent, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Petition for post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 12152262 filed by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC against Halozyme, Inc.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Merck’s request for review of the Board’s institution decisions on several PGRs, including Halozyme’s patent 12,152,262. The denial leaves the Board’s original institution findings intact.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck’s petition challenges Halozyme’s claims to modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing lack of written description and enablement. The reply reinforces these arguments with case law and scientific exhibits.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck requests Director Review to deny institution of a PTAB post‑grant review of Halozyme’s ‘262 patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing the Board misapplied eligibility rules and imported a functional limitation into the claim construction.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck defends the institution of a PGR covering modified PH20 enzymes, rejecting Halozyme’s eligibility, claim‑construction, and Fintiv arguments. The response urges the Director to uphold the Board’s earlier institution decision.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00276 concerning patent 11,777,976. The parties cite a settlement agreement and argue that early dismissal saves costs and resources.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
Normshield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement that led the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00276 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,708,618 before the trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint termination motion and treated the settlement documents as confidential.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo and Ericsson filed a joint request for their settlement agreements to be kept confidential under PTAB rules.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo and Ericsson have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,708,618 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, ending the proceeding before any institution decision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s 13 claims covering PH20 hyaluronidase variants, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness. The petition seeks to have the claims declared unpatentable.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
Normshield has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight’s 11,777,976 patent covering methods for generating composite security ratings. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art from Tippett and McGovern, supported by extensive public‑domain cybersecurity references.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo has filed an IPR petition challenging Ericsson’s U.S. Patent 10,708,618 covering reference‑picture signaling in video codecs. The petition argues that all 19 claims are obvious over earlier video‑coding disclosures (Mulroy, H.264/AVC, and Raveendran) and requests the Board to institute the review despite parallel litigation.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s claims regarding modified PH20 polypeptides in a PTAB decision. The Board instituted trial based on enablement and written description grounds, finding that the broad genus of claimed molecules required undue experimentation to identify active variants.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN’s response argues the PTAB correctly found material error in the examiner’s reliance on a flawed declaration and that the Board’s institution decision stands. The petition challenges the patent owner’s attempt to obtain discretionary denial based on procedural grounds.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Group AG seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of QIAGEN’s IPR, arguing that parallel petitions create inefficiency and unfairness. The request cites statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 316(b) and an Acting Director memo.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
The USPTO denied QIAGEN's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,876,108 owned by Tecan.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB notified QIAGEN that Tecan’s Director Review request for IPR2025-00029 is pending. QIAGEN has five days to submit a concise, five‑page response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Group AG seeks Director Review to overturn a PTAB institution decision that granted QIAGEN's IPR petition challenging its genotyping patent. The owner contends the panel abused discretion, over‑relied on expert testimony, and ignored policy against multiple parallel petitions.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN’s response defends the PTAB’s institution of unpatentability findings for its NGS enrichment patents, rejecting Tecan’s arguments for a discretionary denial under §325(d). The petitioner emphasizes material error, proper nexus analysis, and lack of procedural abuse.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN contests Tecan's request for discretionary denial of a parallel IPR, arguing procedural impropriety and lack of supporting authority. The response cites General Plastic factors and the strength of its claim‑1 invalidity case.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of QIAGEN’s IPR, arguing the Board abused discretion, over‑relied on expert testimony, and allowed duplicate petitions. The request targets the institution decision for patent No. 10,036,012 covering NGS genotyping methods.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB denied QIAGEN’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00028, leaving the institution of the patent intact.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Group AG seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of QIAGEN’s IPR, arguing that parallel petitions create inefficiency and unfairness. The request relies on discretionary denial authority under 35 U.S.C. § 316(b).
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
The Director denied QIAGEN's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00027, leaving the institution standing. No patentability arguments were revisited.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN’s petition challenges Tecan’s request for discretionary denial of a Director Review, arguing that the General Plastic factors do not support denial when multiple unrelated parties file IPRs. The Board is urged to reject Tecan’s request as procedurally improper and unsupported by precedent.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.