US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 172 of 188 · 5,620 total
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 38 claims of the '491 patent unpatentable. The Board construed "in response to" as requiring a causal link between MSI-H/dMMR determination and treatment, which led to a finding that the MSR anticipated and rendered obvious the challenged claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB found all 30 challenged claims unpatentable by anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Petitioner successfully argued that the MSI-H Study Record anticipates the claimed methods for treating non-colorectal MSI-H cancers.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB found all 36 challenged claims unpatentable by both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that the MSI-H Study Record inherently anticipates the claimed methods, including those requiring pre-treatment testing for microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient status. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the context of oncology and immunotherapy.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
HighLevel seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against ClickFunnels, arguing the Board overstepped authority by applying the new Hulu rule retroactively. The petition asks the Director to hold the decision pending the Federal Circuit’s pending §101 appeal.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
HighLevel filed a preliminary reply urging the PTAB to institute its IPR against ClickFunnels’ website‑navigation patent, arguing the new references were never before the Office and are not cumulative of prior art considered during prosecution.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
HighLevel, Inc. filed a preliminary reply urging the PTAB to institute its IPR against ClickFunnels’ patent on website navigation. The petitioner argues the new references were never before the Office and are not cumulative, so the Board should not deny institution under §325(d).
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
ClickFunnels (Etison LLC) submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny HighLevel’s request for a review, citing the Hulu decision and prior district‑court invalidity of the claims. The brief argues that instituting another IPR would be inefficient and that the petitioner’s reliance on the Ford case is misplaced.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
DH International seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against Apple’s ‘294 patent, arguing discretionary denial based on settled expectations and a defective translation of the Suga reference that should not count as prior art.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00172 concerning patent 9,022,294. The institution decision remains in effect, leaving the challenged patent intact.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
HighLevel, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of ClickFunnels' website‑creation patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references. The petition also requests that the Board not invoke discretionary denial under the Fintiv precedent.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of DH International’s ’333 patent covering a portable electronic device with an invariable activation command, asserting obviousness over McGregor, Palmer, and Tuttle references.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of DH International’s ’294 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Suga and Gorsuch. The petition requests institution and argues no discretionary denial grounds exist.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
The PTAB denied HighLevel's IPR against ClickFunnels, citing the efficiency of the patent system. The denial was based on a parallel District Court finding that the challenged claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against DH International Ltd., finding insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments, specifically criticizing the Petitioner's use of hindsight in mapping prior art limitations onto the claimed electronic device.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
Apple successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against DH International Ltd's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over Suga in view of Gorsuch. The Board preliminarily construed key terms like 'invariable activation command,' finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
The PTAB determined that all 20 challenged claims of the '294 patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, finding obviousness over combinations of Suga and Gorsuch. The Board successfully rejected the Patent Owner's attempts to narrow key claim terms, upholding the Petitioner's broad interpretation of functional language.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Runergy and its affiliates have filed a joint motion with Trina Solar and Evervolt to terminate their participation in IPR2025-00006 after settling all disputes, including a related ITC proceeding.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Runergy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Trina Solar’s 009 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering TOPCon solar cell structures.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision granted the petitioner a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all challenged claims related to solar cell technology. The grounds for obviousness centered on combining prior art references like Jin and Feldmann to achieve predictable improvements in TOPCon structure efficiency.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all 17 challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board found specific combinations of prior art, notably Chang and Jin, rendered the claimed solar cell structures obvious.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
EMKinetics challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that invalidated 13 claims of U.S. Patent 11,224,742, arguing the Board relied on unsupported presumptions of public accessibility and improperly admitted new evidence as rebuttal. The Patent Owner seeks Director Review to vacate the decision.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical’s IPR resulted in claims 1‑13 of U.S. Patent 11,224,742 being found unpatentable. EMKinetics sought Director Review, re‑asserting printed‑publication arguments, but the Board denied the request, upholding its decision.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical has filed an IPR petition challenging EMKinetics' U.S. Patent 11,224,742 covering non‑invasive posterior tibial nerve stimulation for overactive bladder. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Svihra, Amarenco, Mann and Ponsford and seeks institution of the trial.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical successfully secured the institution of its IPR against EMKinetics, challenging claims 1-13 based on obviousness over combinations of prior art. The Board found that Petitioner adequately supported unpatentability by demonstrating skilled artisans could make the claimed modifications to existing nerve stimulation methods.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The PTAB found all 13 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103. The Board concluded that the claimed nerve stimulation therapy was obvious over combinations of prior art, specifically citing modifications to Svihra and Amarenco using Mann and Ponsford. This decision confirms the lack of inventive step for the technology described in the patent.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
B & D Technologies defends its lawn‑mower cab patent by asserting that the “rear wall” term means the interior rear wall and that the petitioner’s prior‑art references are not novel, seeking a discretionary denial of the IPR.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries and B & D Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR 2024‑01150 after reaching a settlement, citing 35 U.S.C. §317(a). The Board has not yet decided the merits, and related district‑court litigation was dismissed.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Pictiva Displays has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s Institution Decision in an IPR against Samsung Display. The request argues that the Board improperly relied on a now‑rescinded Guidance Memo and over‑emphasized a Sand Revolution stipulation, while under‑considering the imminent district‑court trial.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries and B&D Technologies settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,632,815 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--
Reolink Digital Technology filed a motion to withdraw its petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,004,602. The patent owner, KT Imaging, did not oppose, and the Board was asked to terminate the proceeding at its early stage.
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.