US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 169 of 291 · 8,722 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a reply opposing Mullen Industries’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering Samsung’s smartwatch patent. The petitioner argues that discretionary factors favor institution, citing lack of overlap and strong merits. Samsung seeks denial of the director’s review request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB granted Samsung's petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries' 11,190,633 patent covering smartwatch notifications. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 39 claims based on prior art combinations. Institution was ordered and the trial will commence.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Tecan’s DNA‑sequencing patent. The petitioner argues the institution is efficient, the expert testimony is proper, and there was no abuse of discretion. The Board’s institution therefore stands.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Genomics seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of Integrated DNA Technologies’ IPR, arguing the panel misapplied discretionary‑denial standards, relied on unsupported expert testimony, and created wasteful parallel litigation. The request cites policy under §§ 316(b) and 325(d) and urges denial of the petition.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies sought IPR of Tecan Genomics' patent covering nucleic acid technologies. The patent owner filed a terminal disclaimer of the entire patent, prompting the Board to grant an adverse judgment and terminate the proceeding.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Group AG files a Director Review request to overturn an institution decision that could invalidate its DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing the panel misapplied law, relied on unsupported expert testimony, and ignored PTAB policy on parallel petitions.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The USPTO denied Integrated DNA Technologies’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs involving Tecan Genomics. The Board concluded the petitions did not merit overturning the earlier institution rulings.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response defending the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against Tecan's DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing the Board acted properly and that expert testimony was appropriate.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Genomics filed a comprehensive set of objections to Integrated DNA Technologies’ evidentiary exhibits in IPR2024‑01504, citing multiple FRE rules to block hearsay, irrelevant, and unauthenticated material. The objections were timely filed after the institution decision.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Eunsung Global's request for Director Review of the decision that had denied institution of an IPR against HydraFacial's patent. The denial leaves the original institution denial intact.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Genomics filed objections to the evidence submitted by Integrated DNA Technologies in IPR2024-01502, citing multiple Federal Rules of Evidence and arguing that the exhibits are either hearsay, irrelevant, unauthenticated, or post‑date the patent and thus not prior art.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The USPTO denied Integrated DNA Technologies' request for Director Review of three institution decisions, leaving Tecan's genomics patent claims instituted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Mullen Industries seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its smartwatch patent, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and would cause waste given an imminent district‑court trial. The petition contends the Board’s factual findings are erroneous and requests denial of institution.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Court decision.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
IDT has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Tecan’s ’357 patent covering NGS library‑preparation methods, asserting obviousness over Iafrate/Kivioja and anticipation/obviousness over Bielas.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
IDT seeks to invalidate Tecan's ’399 NGS patent by alleging obviousness over Iafrate/Kivioja and anticipation/obviousness over Bielas, and requests the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
IDT has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Tecan’s ’241 patent, arguing that the claims are fully anticipated or obvious in view of Kivioja (2011) and Bielas (2013) disclosures.
Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v.Asetek Danmark A/S et al.
Cooler Master has filed a petition to cancel claims 1‑7 of Asetek’s liquid‑cooling patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and citing a prior IPR that cancelled similar claims.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 41 claims of HydraFacial's skin‑treatment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition asserts that the examiner never considered the Karasiuk‑Palmer, Greenberg, and Trueba teachings and that discretionary denial is not warranted.
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate eight claims of Haptic’s ‘738 patent covering gesture‑based control of terminal devices. The petition relies on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Murakoshi, Stewart, Sachs, Orr, Li and iFixit.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Procter & Gamble’s deodorant‑stick patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack written‑description support.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications' U.S. Patent 7,463,703 covering multi‑user detection. The petition asserts that all five claims are obvious under §103 by combining prior‑art references such as Brommer, Lilleberg, Hottinen, Learned, ElGamal, Frank and Zha.
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Haptic’s 9,996,738 patent covering accelerometer‑based gesture control. The petition asserts obviousness over Murakoshi, Stewart, Sachs, and Orr references and seeks institution of the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 39 claims of Mullen Industries' smartwatch patent, arguing obviousness over five pre‑AIA smartwatch references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial by the Board.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all nine claims of Molecular Loop’s ’730 DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing that the Chee patent and a combination of other references anticipate or render obvious each claim. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of CamelBak’s 9,782,028 drink‑container patent, alleging obviousness over Kiyota, Ribarits and Choi references and arguing that the term “user release mechanism” is means‑plus‑function.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging claims 1-16 of a nucleic acid analysis patent, finding reasonable likelihood of success. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's motion to deny based on prior art similarity, allowing the technical merits of anticipation and obviousness over Kivioja and Bielas to proceed to trial.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over Iafrate and Kivioja for key NGS claims. The Board also provided definitive claim constructions for 'indexing site' and 'identifier site.'
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies challenged Tecan Genomics's NGS patent (9546399) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art references Iafrate and Kivioja. The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Iafrate and Kivioja.
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands' IPR challenge against CamelBak Products regarding a drinkware patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground, despite arguments concerning functional equivalence in user release mechanisms over prior art like Kiyota and Ribarits.
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.