US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 170 of 291 · 8,722 total
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. faced denial in an IPR proceeding against Collision Communications, Inc., regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found no reasonable likelihood that Samsung could overcome the obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge The Procter & Gamble Company's deodorant patent (11844752). The Board granted institution on all 19 claims, finding sufficient evidence of obviousness over various prior art combinations. This sets up a major trial regarding the validity of P&G’s core cosmetic technology.
Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v.Asetek Danmark A/S et al.
Cooler Master Co., Ltd.'s IPR petition against Asetek Danmark A/S was denied by the PTAB, failing to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed liquid-cooling systems were obvious over prior art references like Duan and Shin.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge regarding skin treatment systems due to substantial overlap with parallel ITC proceedings and advanced litigation. This decision emphasizes resource conservation when multiple venues address the same prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute IPR against Haptic, Inc.'s patent. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel civil litigation and concerns over system efficiency.
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Haptic, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited advanced progress and investment in parallel civil litigation as the primary reason for denying institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to invalidate Mullen Industries' patent (11190633) covering wearable device notifications, leading the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across five grounds using combinations of prior art like Narayanaswami and Kita 514.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) in a dispute involving Samsung and Mullen Industries. The decision relied on the Fintiv factors, finding that procedural concerns outweighed the merits.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute trial against Molecular Loop Biosciences' patent claims related to genomic sequencing and analysis. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1, allowing the IPR to proceed despite extensive prior art challenges under Sections 102 and 103.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB found multiple claims unpatentable under both § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness). The decision centered on the combination of prior art references—specifically Iafrate, Kivioja, and Bielas—in the context of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies. Claim construction was finalized, defining key terms like 'identifier site' and 'indexing site'.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB found all 19 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to combine various prior art references for predictable results. This decision confirms the validity of the combination approach under POSA principles in deodorant formulation technology.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB upheld the patentability of claims 1-9 for Molecular Loop Biosciences against Illumina. The Board rejected all grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art like Chee, finding that the required 'collapsing step' necessitates combining both target sequence and differentiator tag information.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital seeks to have the PTAB vacate an instituted IPR on its MTJ hard‑drive patent, arguing that piecemeal review undermines the AIA and that the district court is the proper forum.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny IP Bridge’s Director Review request. The brief argues that IP Bridge ignored Board guidance and provides no basis for vacating the institution decisions.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB denied Director Review requests for three IPRs, including Western Digital’s challenge to patent 10,680,167 owned by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1. The institution decisions remain in effect.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital files an authorized response opposing IP Bridge’s Director Review request, asserting the request lacks merit and that the PTAB’s institution decisions should stand.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital requests the PTAB Director to vacate institution of an IPR on a hard‑disk‑drive MTJ patent, arguing that the case should be resolved in the pending district‑court litigation.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Director Review requests were issued for IPR2024-01493 and IPR2024-01494, limiting petitioner responses to five pages and prohibiting new evidence.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB denied Western Digital's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving patent 11,968,909. The institution rulings therefore remain in place.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request for two IPRs involving Western Digital and Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1. The petitioner must respond within five business days with a brief limited to the raised issues and cannot submit new evidence.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of 14 claims of Hyperice’s percussive‑massager patent, alleging lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of the ’909 MRAM patent owned by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art MTJ publications, and disputes any discretionary denial.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital petitions the PTAB to invalidate 15 claims of a MRAM patent, arguing they are obvious over known MTJ teachings. The petition cites Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai, Parkin and Soukup as prior art and challenges discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Truesight’s ’803 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of eight prior‑art references covering kiosk‑based streaming, authentication, and removable media.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC regarding a medical device patent (11857482). The Board found prima facie evidence of obviousness and indefiniteness across multiple claims based on prior art combinations.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review on 16 claims against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1's patent (11968909). The Board found sufficient support for obviousness over Bowen and Soukup, particularly regarding Claim 5.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 were non-obvious, leading to the institution of trial on all claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 based on combinations of Bowen and Sunai prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR petition against Truesight's patent (8898803), citing the advanced stage and proximity of related District Court litigation.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody challenged Hyperice's patent on percussive massagers based on indefiniteness and obviousness, but the PTAB upheld the claims. The Board found that key terms like 'substantially cylindrical' were supported by functional limitations in the specification.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
iCharts LLC filed an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Tableau Software’s request for director review of the institution decision. The response emphasizes that the dissent does not merit reversal and that Tableau failed the reasonable‑likelihood test under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
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.