US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 167 of 286 · 8,574 total
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s ’517 patent covering a GUI‑based DNS policy system. The petition argues the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references and that the examiner never considered these references. Institutional factors are presented to favor instituting the review.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 11 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over early‑2000s container technologies such as Linux VServer, Solaris Zones, and Zap pods.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Credo’s ’252 active Ethernet cable patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art combinations and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks an IPR of Align’s 11,369,456 patent covering clear‑aligner treatment‑plan software. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute review and invalidate claims 1‑19.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Pantech’s U.S. Patent 8,995,372, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references covering carrier‑aggregation random access.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft has filed a petition to invalidate 18 claims of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, alleging obviousness over the Callender patent. The petition argues that Callender is prior art under §102(e) and renders the claims unpatentable under §103.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s 7,519,814 patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight Pantech LTE‑muting claims, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Chandrasekhar‑I, Chandrasekhar‑II, and TI standards.
Amazon Web Services, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Amazon Web Services seeks to invalidate Croga Innovations’ 10,601,780 patent on network isolation, arguing that decades‑old firewall and virtualization techniques render the claims obvious. The petition cites the 2004 Nazario book and the 2010 Ghosh patent as prior art.
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 FinFET patent, arguing that the claims are obvious in view of multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR covering claims 1‑12.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have filed a petition to invalidate SiOnyx’s 83‑claim image‑sensor patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over a broad set of prior‑art references. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim mappings and argues that the Board should institute the IPR.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC has filed a petition to institute an IPR against The Noco Company's portable jump‑starter patent, arguing that all eleven claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Richardson, Zhao, Yu and Paparrizos.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of AutoConnect’s vehicle‑control patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Ikeda and Hendry publications.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of VideoLabs' ’304 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Russ and Robert patents.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VideoLabs' ’236 patent covering conditional access and DRM bridging. The petition relies on three prior patents—Russ, Robert, and Eskicioglu—to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of CM HK’s 11,698,687 patent covering a 3‑D pointing device. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Bassompiere prior art and lack written‑description support for quaternion‑based algorithms.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of a video‑compression patent owned by Advanced Coding Technologies, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial of the request.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Align Technology’s 11,154,384 patent covering multilayer dental aligners. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Tadros, Kalili, Porter, Wen, and Texin 990R.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate VideoLabs’ U.S. Patent 8,291,236 covering conditional‑access and DRM bridging, citing the Russ patent as prior art for anticipation and obviousness.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Evolution Malta’s ’371 roulette‑payout patent, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier gaming patents such as Kido, Yee, and Baron.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s U.S. Patent 8,587,076, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial is improper under §§314(a) and 325(d).
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’180 patent, asserting obviousness over numerous high‑k gate dielectric references. The petition also argues that the Board should not apply discretionary denial. The case is pending institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Wilus Institute’s U.S. Patent 10,313,077 covering Wi‑Fi coexistence signaling. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple IEEE 802.11‑related prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
Caption Health has filed an IPR petition challenging UBC’s 2021 ultrasound imaging patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references describing view‑specific neural‑network quality assessment.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Cellular South’s 11,126,853 patent covering video‑to‑data systems, asserting that all eleven claims are obvious under §103. The petition lists four grounds, each tying specific claim groups to prior‑art references.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’321 video‑coding patent, asserting that claims 8‑11 are obvious over MPEG‑1, the Kim patent, and Yagasaki. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--
Clearwater Paper has filed a revised IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 and 11 of Graphic Packaging International’s biodegradable paper cup patent, asserting anticipation by Cleveland and obviousness via Nakagawa and Tanner. The petition requests institution of the review.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VideoLabs' ’236 patent claims covering conditional access and DRM bridging. The petition relies on three prior‑art patents (Russ, Robert, Eskicioglu) to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--
Clearwater Paper has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 and 11 of Graphic Packaging’s biodegradable cup patent, asserting anticipation by Cleveland and obviousness over Nakagawa and Tanner. The petition argues the prior art was not considered during prosecution and requests institution of the trial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of GenghisComm’s ’568 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing the patent is post‑AIA. The petition seeks institution of 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.