US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 168 of 286 · 8,574 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of GenghisComm’s ’285 patent covering OFDM techniques. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues that a discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’922 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of GenghisComm’s OFDM patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Galda, Dowling, Kaiser and Bury. The petition also argues the patent’s priority chain is broken and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of Hermes’s ’720 patent covering idle‑screen management on mobile devices, asserting obviousness over Hawkins, Majava and Nielsen.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging Pantech’s 10,863,573 patent covering dual‑connectivity data handling. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑5 and 8‑12.
Valneva Austria GMBH v.Takeda Vaccines, Inc.
Valneva has filed an IPR petition challenging all 67 claims of Takeda’s Zika vaccine patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petitioner argues the examiner erred and that no discretionary bars apply, seeking cancellation of the entire patent.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 29 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’720 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary denial under §§314(a) and 325(d) is inappropriate.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Audio Pod IP’s 8,738,740 patent covering audio‑stream segment selection and delivery, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple CDN‑related references.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 12‑17 of Audio Pod IP’s 8,738,740 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering audio bookmarking and descriptor files.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA has filed an IPR petition challenging PACid’s ’530 patent on multiple obviousness grounds, citing Immega, Day, Tomko, Mardikar‑318, Chhabra and Duffy prior art. The petition argues for institution and cites Fintiv factors.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google has filed an IPR petition against Cellular South’s 9,940,972 B2 “Video to Data” patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art references Fontana, Lau, and Arakawa. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Audio Pod IP’s 10,805,111 patent covering digital talking‑book playback, arguing that all 16 claims are obvious over prior art such as Prabhakaran and DTB.
Microsoft Corporation v.TS-Optics Corporation
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging TS‑Optics’ U.S. Patent 7,266,055 covering optical pickup actuators. The petition asserts that all asserted claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references, including Choi, Ogata, Ikeda, Kamata, Santo, Kabasawa, Miura, and Sugiyama. Microsoft seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of PACid Technologies' ’771 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on a suite of prior‑art references covering biometric and cryptographic authentication.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s CDN patent, arguing anticipation by Newton-471 and obviousness over Dilley, Pai, and Wang. The petition stresses favorable institution factors and argues against discretionary denial.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’266 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack proper priority support.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.
Alpinestars has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Dainese’s U.S. Patent 12,012,065, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of VB Assets’ voice‑dialog patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over two pre‑2006 publications. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial is improper.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging VB Assets' U.S. Patent 10,510,341, asserting that all 18 claims are obvious over prior‑art combinations of SmartKom/Kobsa and Barbara/Ross. The petition seeks institution of the review.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of PACid Technologies' ’433 patent on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition emphasizes early filing and strong Fintiv factors to argue for institution.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against PACid Technologies' 2018 patent covering biometric user authentication, asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim analyses and argues that institutional factors strongly favor proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Datonics’ ’445 patent covering targeted‑advertising methods. The petition argues all claims are obvious over prior art such as Gilmour, Merriman, Frauenhofer, and Julia, and disputes any discretionary denial.
Perplexity AI, Inc. v.Comet ML, Inc.
Perplexity AI has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twelve claims of Comet ML’s neural‑network training patent. The challenger asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references—Baker, Lorenz, Shridhar, and Jenatton—under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD seeks to invalidate 30 claims of its competitor’s ’768 patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier cluster‑computing publications and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG Sauer has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of True Velocity’s polymeric ammunition cartridge patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines seven statutory grounds under §§ 102 and 103 and requests institution of the review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
Amazon has filed a petition to invalidate DivX’s 10,715,806 video‑transcoding patent, asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art such as Sambe, Vetro, and Gu. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary statutes.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of the ’768 patent, asserting they are obvious over earlier Cornell research and IBM documentation. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate given the strong merits and AMD’s AI semiconductor interests.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Mojawa has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Shenzhen Shokz’s bone‑conduction headphone patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,744,686 covering an intraoral mouthpiece. The petition asserts that claims 12‑21 are obvious over several prior‑art patents and that the patent owner broadened claim scope. The case is pending institution.
Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid
Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,271,877, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art references Rossmann, Himmel, King, and Boyle. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all 19 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.