US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 167 of 188 · 5,620 total
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
Motorola Mobility LLC's IPR challenge against Largan Precision Co., Ltd.'s optical component patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in overcoming obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that several original claims were unpatentable over Buibas in view of Sinyavskiy. However, the Board subsequently found the petitioner's substitute claims obvious over combinations of Grotmol and Zhu prior art, leading to further rejection.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
The PTAB found the challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness (103), specifically concluding that prior art references taught every element of Independent Claim 1. The Board also adopted broad claim constructions, rejecting narrow interpretations proposed by the Patent Owner regarding terms like 'Exhibitor' and 'Distribution'.
Intel Corporation et al. v.TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON et al.
The PTAB found multiple claims of the '430 patent unpatentable over prior art, primarily Taniguchi. The Board adopted Petitioner's construction that key claim terms were not limiting, supporting obviousness findings across several grounds.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. Specifically, Claims 13-15 and 17-20 were found unpatentable over prior art references Fegan and Vasilevsky/Logan. The Board also denied the Petitioner's motion to exclude exhibits.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
Nearmap filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Pictometry’s aerial imaging patent. The petitioner claims the Board misapplied rules on claim‑chart format, expert declaration length, and claim construction. Nearmap seeks remand to a new panel to evaluate its obviousness and anticipation arguments.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet requested a Director Review of the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against InfoExpress's patent 8,117,645. The Director denied the request, leaving the institution decision denied.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on their network‑security patent. They contend the Board misinterpreted the Krantz reference, overlooking device‑level audit data. The petition seeks vacatur of the decision and institution of the review.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
Nearmap US, Inc. challenged U.S. Patent 9,182,657 on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references—including Loewen, Fujimoto, Mostafa, and Kain—render the claimed aerial image capture technology obvious. This is a challenger's opening petition for review in the field of Aerial Image Capture and Geolocation.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS challenges InfoExpress's patent (8117645) in the PTAB, arguing that claims related to Network Access Control are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner relies heavily on prior art references Krantz and Herrmann to demonstrate that combining known security and NAC techniques would have been routine for a POSITA.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
The PTAB denied Nearmap US, Inc.'s IPR petition against Pictometry International Corp., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. The Board also noted that the Petition lacked particularity in mapping prior art disclosures to claim limitations.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. failed to overcome obviousness challenges against InfoExpress Inc.'s network security patent (8117645) before the PTAB. The Board denied institution because the petitioner could not demonstrate that prior art teachings sufficiently suggested specific auditing limitations in the claims.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled the IPR challenge to U.S. Patent 10,327,607 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
Daingean Technologies Ltd. opposes AT&T and other petitioners’ IPR request on U.S. Patent 11,196,509, asserting that the cited Lee and Zheng references fail to teach the patent’s specific code‑block sizing and grouping features, and that the petition relies on hindsight.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,327,607 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review by joint motion.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,327,607 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Court decision.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Shoals Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,689,153 covering solar lead assemblies. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness under § 112. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited challenged Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s surface cleaning apparatus claims in a PTAB Petition, arguing the technology is obvious and anticipated by multiple prior art references. The petition cites numerous grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), primarily involving combinations of Liddell, Organ, Simpson, and Soler.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
AT&T and its partners filed a Petition challenging Daingean Technologies' '400 Patent, asserting that claims 5, 7, and 8 are anticipated or obvious by the prior art reference R2-1702708. The challenge focuses on dual-connectivity/5G standards, arguing that an Ericsson technical contribution discloses all elements of the challenged claims. This is a critical early stage attack in ongoing litigation against Daingean Technologies.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of a PGR challenge against the '153 patent covering solar power lead assemblies. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate a likelihood that any claims were unpatentable, despite raising numerous obviousness (103) and written description/indefiniteness (112) grounds.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against a patent covering cleaning apparatuses. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB denied AT&T's IPR against Daingean Technologies, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success regarding claims related to code block segmentation and HARQ-ACKs. The denial hinged on insufficient support for the 'multiple CB/CBG limitation' in both cited prior art references.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR against Daingean Technologies' patent, finding that the petitioner failed to prove its sole prior art reference (R2-1702708) was a publicly accessible printed publication.
Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Marinus Pharmaceuticals seeks to invalidate Ovid Therapeutics’ 2022 ganaxolone patent covering methods for treating status epilepticus, arguing anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement based on prior publications and press releases.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet seek a Director Review of a PTAB decision upholding InfoExpress’s network‑authentication patent. They contend the Board improperly allowed incorporation‑by‑reference arguments, violating USPTO rules and prejudicing the challengers. The petition asks the Director to vacate and remand the decision.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
InfoExpress defends its Network Access Control patent against Cisco and Fortinet’s Director Review request, asserting the Board correctly found no unpatentable claims. The petitioners’ new arguments are deemed untimely and forfeited.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet successfully defended claims of InfoExpress’s network‑access control patent in IPR2024‑00677; the Board found no unpatentable subject matter.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Cisco’s request for review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00677 and related cases. The order confirms that no Director Review will be granted.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO Systems requested Director Review in IPR2024-00677 concerning patent 8,578,444 owned by InfoExpress; the Board will decide whether to grant the review.
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.