US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 165 of 286 · 8,574 total
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Marvell has filed an IPR petition challenging Credo’s U.S. Patent 10,877,233 covering active electrical cables with pre‑equalization, asserting that the invention is obvious over prior‑art references such as Lugthart, Gorecki, Cornelius and Samaan.
Safe Arc Technology, LLC v.PetroHab LLC et al.
Safe Arc Technology petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against PetroHab’s ’775 patent covering modular welding enclosures, asserting that all 12 claims are obvious over prior art references Wardlaw, Ferrante, and Ballinger.
Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Aesthetic Management Partners has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of HydraFacial’s ’477 skin‑treatment patent. The petition relies on obviousness grounds under §103, citing multiple prior‑art references covering microdermabrasion and fluid delivery systems.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Patent 11,856,414. The challenger argues that the patent’s claims are obvious in view of earlier Wi‑Fi technologies disclosed in Chincholi, Riggert, and Choi. The petition seeks institution of the review to invalidate the claims.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s 7,632,751 patent, seeking cancellation of 20 claims covering dummy‑via dual‑damascene methods. The petition relies on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Pat. No. 11,974,143, asserting that the claimed multi‑transceiver bandwidth‑allocation architecture is obvious over prior‑art Wi‑Fi aggregation systems (Chincholi, Riggert) and, for a subset of claims, also over Choi’s dynamic frequency selection.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi Networks' 11,818,591 patent covering multi‑transceiver wireless networking devices, asserting that all 26 claims are obvious over the Chincholi and Riggert references.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta has filed an IPR petition challenging Genzyme’s 7,704,721 AAV vector patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art purification methods. The petition cites Auricchio, Konz, Potter and related references to support its grounds.
Arla Foods amba v.Leprino Foods Company et al.
Arla Foods petitions the PTAB to invalidate Leprino Foods’ 11,825,860 patent covering denatured whey protein compositions, asserting anticipation and obviousness over several dairy‑protein references.
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 23 claims of Helsinn’s anti‑emetic patent covering netupitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone regimens. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and disputes the asserted unexpected synergy. No decision has been issued yet.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 25 claims of Secure Communication Technologies’ ’918 patent, asserting obviousness over Eagle, Behrens, Olkkonen and related references.
Pinterest, Inc. v.OpenTV, Inc. et al.
Pinterest has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate OpenTV’s ’169 Patent claims covering interactive‑TV rendering methods, citing obviousness over five prior‑art references.
Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.
Starbucks has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Pi‑Design’s French‑press patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art coffee‑maker references.
Coretronic Corporation et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1, 7, and 8 of Maxell’s 7,159,988 projection‑optics patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.L'AIR LIQUIDE, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME POUR L'ETUDE ET L'EXPLOITATION DES PROCÉDÉS GEORGES CLAUDE
Topsoe has filed an IPR petition challenging Air Liquide’s 2023 hydrogen‑production patent (US 11,673,805). The challenger alleges anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6, 11 and 12.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 72 claims of CardWare’s ’634 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokenization. The petition argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
Microsoft and AT&T have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Lemko’s 8,310,990 patent covering distributed mobile architecture handover, asserting that the claims are anticipated by the earlier Flore publication.
ProAmpac Holdings Inc. v.Sigma Technologies Int'l, LLC et al.
ProAmpac has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of U.S. Patent 11,072,148, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
Caihong has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Corning’s 8,627,684 patent covering a glass‑roll apparatus for flat‑panel displays. The petition relies on eight prior‑art references to argue obviousness of claims 1‑14.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
Aerin Medical has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Neurent’s ’262 patent, arguing they are obvious over four prior‑art references covering nasal neuromodulation technology.
Coretronic Corporation et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 of Maxell’s projector patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art projector documents and manuals.
Apple Inc. v.CText IP LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of CText IP’s ’304 patent covering chat‑window visual cues. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Chang, Oh, and Stochosky—to argue obviousness under §103 and argues against discretionary denial.
Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH
Albany International has filed an IPR petition challenging Voith’s 15‑claim paper‑machine clothing patent, asserting that all claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition details measurements showing the claimed loop‑density and seam‑loop ratio were known long before the patent’s priority date.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to invalidate Marlin Semiconductor’s ’473 MOS transistor patent, asserting that all ten claims are obvious over prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and argues against discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of VB Assets' ’699 patent covering conversational AI. The challenger relies on five pre‑2022 publications to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
Aquestive Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Iono Pharma’s ‘437 patent covering sublingual/ buccal epinephrine prodrugs. The challenger relies on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Truelove patents, an academic paper, and the Almoazen paper.
uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
uPI Semiconductor petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Force MOS Technology’s 2010 trench MOSFET patent, asserting that claims 1‑5 are obvious over Bulucea combined with four other references. The petition argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution.
Kangxi Communications Technologies v.Skyworks Solutions Canada, Inc. et al.
Kangxi Communications has filed an IPR petition against Skyworks’ 7,409,200 patent covering multi‑die RF front‑end modules. The challenger alleges obviousness over Garlepp and over a Magoon‑Ngompe combination. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ ’844 patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’808 video‑coding patent, alleging obviousness over the Karczewicz publication and the MPEG‑1/H.263 standards. The petition invokes 35 U.S.C. §103 for all 21 challenged claims.
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.