US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 166 of 291 · 8,722 total
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Court decision.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
PTAB issued Director Review requests for IPR2025-00028 and IPR2025-00029, limiting responses to five pages and prohibiting new evidence. QIAGEN and Tecan must file brief replies within five business days.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Aspen Networks, Inc.
Petitioners (Verizon, T‑Mobile, AT&T) seek to invalidate Aspen Networks’ 2011 VoIP handoff patent, arguing all 28 claims are obvious over Tagg and the Kottilingal‑Politis combination. They also request the Board not to deny institution under discretionary statutes.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Tecan’s ’108 patent covering nucleic‑acid enrichment for next‑generation sequencing, arguing obviousness over Shapero, Delseny, Jones and Hamady references.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN seeks an IPR of Tecan’s ’241 patent covering NGS duplicate‑read detection, asserting that all 16 claims are anticipated or obvious over prior‑art references such as McCloskey, Porreca, and Schmitt.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tecan’s ’012 patent covering nucleic‑acid enrichment for NGS, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier academic publications. The petition argues the examiner relied on an unsupported declaration and that no secondary considerations exist.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Tecan’s ’357 sequencing patent, arguing that the invention was fully disclosed in earlier barcoding and sequencing literature.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Tecan Genomics, challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10876108 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that the Examiner erred in relying solely on secondary considerations, adopting the Petitioner's view that combining Shapero and Delseny renders multiple claims obvious.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned the PTAB against Tecan Genomics regarding claims related to Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS). The Board instituted review, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Tecan Genomics for patent number 11725241. The Board found sufficient evidence of unpatentability across multiple claims based on grounds of anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial proceedings against Tecan Genomics, Inc. regarding a high-throughput sequencing patent (11098357). The Board found reasonable likelihood that claims 1 through 10 are unpatentable under both anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103).
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Aspen Networks, Inc.
T-Mobile USA's IPR challenge against Aspen Networks regarding VoIP network routing claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its obviousness grounds, specifically concerning how SIP signaling sequences are maintained across network handoffs.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra Inc.
Silicon Motion and K.Mizra settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,331,379 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra Inc.
Silicon Motion and K.Mizra have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,313,379 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is expected to grant the termination.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra Inc.
Silicon Motion and K.Mizra jointly moved to dismiss their IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Ewald Dorken AG v.Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG et al.
Ewald Dörken AG has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Schaeffler’s wheel‑bearing coating patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim terms.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra Inc.
Silicon Motion Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,331,379 held by K.Mizra LLC. The core challenge asserts that the claimed DRAM controller features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including LaBerge and Bowater.
Ewald Dorken AG v.Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG et al.
The PTAB denied Ewald Dorken AG's IPR challenge against Schaeffler Technologies regarding wheel bearing coating patents. The Board found the petition failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, citing insufficient mapping and lack of explicit disclosure for key limitations like 'zinc flake coating.'
LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.
LCY Biotechnology and Radici Chimica have reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to have the agreement treated as confidential and to terminate the PTAB post‑grant review. The request relies on 35 U.S.C. §327(b) and related regulations.
LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.
LCY Biotechnology and Radici Chimica reached a settlement, prompting a joint motion to terminate the post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 11,781,148 covering yeast metabolic engineering.
LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.
LCY Biotechnology and Radici Chimica settled their post‑grant review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,781,148. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the PTAB dismissed the petition, terminating the proceeding.
LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v.Radici Chimica, S.p.A.
LCY Biotechnology has filed a PGR petition challenging Radici Chimica’s 2023 patent on engineered yeast for terpene production, arguing obviousness over Bailey and Zhang and lack of enablement due to the claim breadth.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The parties filed a joint motion citing settlement and confidentiality concerns.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nokia's wireless‑network patent, so the institution stands.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia has filed a Director Review request asking the PTAB to vacate its decision to institute an IPR against Amazon's video‑coding patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied the POSITA standard and ignored the inventor's "skip coding mode" terminology.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon seeks director review of the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Nokia’s ‘808 patent covering a redefined skip coding mode in video encoders. Nokia argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards and ignored the patent’s explicit lexicography.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement documents be kept confidential under statutory provisions.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia filed a Director Review Request asking the USPTO to overturn the Board’s decision to institute IPR2024-00847 against Amazon. The petition argues the Board erred in combining mutually exclusive video‑coding modes and ignored the term “skip coding mode.”
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00891 covering U.S. Patent No. 11,020,031. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and notes that the Board has not yet decided the merits. The parties also seek termination of related IPRs and a district‑court case.
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.