US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 169 of 286 · 8,574 total
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
MIM Software has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Progenics' prostate‑cancer imaging patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the Board to institute review and opposes discretionary denial under §314(a).
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent covering shared‑library implementations of OS functionality. The petition relies on prior‑art references (Ely, Levine, Thekkath, Eggert) to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of QPrivacy’s U.S. 11,816,249 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on three prior‑art patents (Burns, Yang, Guruswamy). The petition argues that the Board should institute trial and rejects any discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 27 claims of Allani’s ’058 patent covering mobile web navigation. The challenger relies on obviousness over multiple pre‑AIA references and argues indefiniteness of key claim language.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Smart RF’s ’345 patent on digital predistortion, arguing the claims are obvious over Wright, Booth, Leyendecker and Jin. The petition requests institution and cancellation of all eleven claims.
Docker Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Docker has filed an IPR petition against Intellectual Ventures' U.S. Patent 8,332,844 covering a block‑level branching store file system, seeking cancellation of claims 1‑27 on the basis of obviousness over four prior‑art combinations.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
Belden and PPC Broadband petition PTAB to invalidate claims 9‑13 of CommScope’s cable payout bag patent, arguing obviousness over eight prior‑art combinations and improper claim constructions.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of the ’779 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Torii, Mise, Yu, Gilmer and Chen. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 11 claims of Marlin’s FinFET patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition details five statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
Innoscience America petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 17 claims of Infineon's GaN transistor packaging patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and challenging a discretionary denial under §314(a).
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.
MIM Software seeks an IPR of EXINI Diagnostics' 3D cancer‑lesion segmentation patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition claims the examiner erred by relying on an outdated Hamadeh reference.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s 11,799,131 patent covering lithium‑ion battery electrolytes and electrode structures, seeking cancellation of claims 14‑17 on obviousness grounds.
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Inter IKEA Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Pointwise Ventures’ ’812 patent, arguing anticipation by Darrell and obviousness over Boncyk, Darrell, and Fukuda.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 26‑29 and 35‑39 of U.S. Patent 10,333,768, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art papers (Menon, Trefethen) combined with IBM documentation and the MPI standard. The petition also challenges discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems’ ’768 patent covering cluster‑computing architectures, arguing that the invention was disclosed years earlier in Cornell’s MultiMATLAB papers and IBM documentation.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1 and 7 of Pantech’s LTE random‑access patent, alleging lack of written description and anticipation/obviousness by several 3GPP specifications. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and requests institution of the review.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
Dentsply Sirona has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Osseo Imaging’s 8,498,374 patent covering dental CT densitometry. The petition relies on Arai and Pelc prior‑art references, arguing anticipation and obviousness for all 24 claims.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed a petition for inter partes review of Pantech’s U.S. Patent 10,764,803 covering enhanced uplink operation in soft handover. The challenger asserts lack of written description and obviousness over several 3GPP standards and Ericsson documents, seeking cancellation of eight claims.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and its affiliates have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate U.S. Patent 10,926,218, which covers mercury removal from coal‑fired power plant flue gas. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over several prior‑art references and argues lack of written‑description support for key claim limitations. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the IPR.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Amneal has filed a petition to cancel Nivagen's 11,813,291 patent covering ready‑to‑use potassium phosphate solutions, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
Dentsply Sirona has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Osseo Imaging’s 6,381,301 patent covering dental and orthopedic CT densitometry. The challenger asserts the claims are anticipated or obvious over Arai and Pelc references, especially when combined with Cann and Rothman teachings. The petition seeks a finding that claims 1‑8 and 10‑20 are unpatentable.
Western Digital Technologies et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Godo Kaisha’s MRAM patent, arguing they are obvious over Parkin, Wang, Soukup, and Bowen. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
Petitioners—including T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia—seek to invalidate 15 claims of Smart RF’s multi‑band predistortion patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art combinations involving Peroulas, Posti and Cidronali. The petition requests institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
T-MOBILE USA, INC. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
Petitioners—including T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia—seek to invalidate Smart RF’s U.S. Patent 10,958,296 covering a multi‑band digital predistortion linearizer. They argue the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Peroulas, Posti and Cidronali and request the PTAB to institute the IPR.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s U.S. Patent 12,019,461 covering remote fluid‑handling control. The challenger argues that a combination of four prior‑art references makes all 17 claims obvious under §103 and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms filed an IPR petition challenging Mullen Industries' location‑based AR gaming patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references including Jaszlics, Sofer, Ronzani, and Rallison.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of PACid Technologies' ’993 patent on user authentication. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §102. The Board is asked to institute the review.
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC v.Facet Technology Corp.
ZF Active Safety files a petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Facet Technology’s ’328 patent covering roadway reflectivity assessment, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition against Mullen Industries' 11,947,716 patent covering head‑mounted devices with flexible displays and keyboards, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 69 claims of the ’971 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of Watanabe, Ribaudo, and Behrens prior art relating to Bluetooth beacon and proximity services.
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.