US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 173 of 286 · 8,574 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,159,210, asserting that all nine claims are obvious over the 802.11ax draft standard and two earlier patent publications. The petition relies on expert testimony and argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of U.S. Patent 10,080,250, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations involving domain‑based security and virtualization. The petition requests institution and a finding of unpatentability.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,472,427, asserting that the driver‑authentication system is anticipated or obvious over Murphy, Arshad, Adams, Wu and Petrik references.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Lenovo and Motorola have filed an IPR petition challenging the ‘492 patent covering a hybrid turbo‑MUD system. They assert that the asserted claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art MUD references. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Canadian Solar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Trina Solar’s 2019 solar‑cell patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Jin, Feldmann and Chang.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Canadian Solar seeks to invalidate 11 claims of Trina Solar's 9,722,104 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art such as Jin, Feldmann, Chang, Seo, and Watabe. The petition requests institution and notes discretionary denial is inapplicable.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple petitions the PTAB to invalidate Apex Beam's 5G beam‑failure and LBT‑failure recovery patent, arguing obviousness over Cirik, Wu, and InterDigital.
Vertiv Corporation v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
Vertiv seeks IPR cancellation of Valtrus’s ’277 data‑center cooling patent, asserting that all 21 claims are anticipated by Nakanishi and Bishop and obvious over their combination.
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Edge Networking's distributed software‑defined networking patent. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over the Vasell patent combined with OSGi‑related references. It also contends that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen has filed an IPR petition challenging Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s U.S. Pat. 9,856,320, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over prior‑art clinical‑trial protocols and dosing disclosures. The petition argues no secondary considerations exist and that there is no ground for discretionary denial.
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition against Edge Networking’s ’095 patent covering distributed software‑defined networking. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Vasell and related OSGi literature and opposes discretionary denial.
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Edge Networking’s distributed software‑defined networking patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Vasell patent combined with OSGi‑related references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
RegenX Science Inc. v.NeXtGen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 30 claims of NeXtGen’s 2023 patent covering axolotl‑derived extracellular matrix scaffolds, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑3 of Viking Arm’s ’473 patent covering a handheld jacking tool. The challenger asserts the claims are obvious over the German Gruber publication combined with the earlier Braselmann patent.
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. et al. v.Kolon Industries, Inc.
Hyosung has filed an IPR petition challenging Kolon's 10,196,765 patent covering hybrid nylon‑aramid tire cords, asserting that all six claims are obvious over prior art such as Nakayasu and Fritsch.
Vertiv Corporation v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
Vertiv has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Valtrus’s 2005 data‑center cooling patent, alleging anticipation by Bash and Patel and obviousness over Bishop, Feeney, and Kochavi. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Neural AI’s RE49461 patent covering GPU‑based neural network execution. The petition relies on six obviousness grounds based on Buck, Wilt, nnet, ANN and GPU Gems references. It also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen petitions the PTAB to invalidate Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s 10,174,113 melanoma immunotherapy patent, arguing the claims are obvious over public clinical‑trial data and lack written‑description support for the 480 mg dose.
VideoAmp Inc. v.The Nielsen Company (US), LLC
VideoAmp has filed a petition for Inter Partes Review challenging Nielsen’s U.S. Patent 11,871,058 covering methods to determine media presentation duration from set‑top‑box tuning data. The petitioner argues the claims are obvious over prior art such as Pecjak, Mirisola, and Shankar, and seeks institution of the IPR.
Vertiv Corporation v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
Vertiv has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all nine claims of Valtrus’s 2005 cooling‑system patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute the trial.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. et al. v.Vervain, LLC
Kingston Technology has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Vervain’s ’298 patent covering hybrid SLC‑MLC NAND‑flash memory. The petition asserts that all eleven claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 48 claims of its reissued RE48,438 patent covering GPU‑based artificial neural‑network processing. The challenger relies on four prior‑art references—Kirk, Oh, Tamura, and GPU Gems—to argue obviousness under § 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen petitions the PTAB to invalidate Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s ’529 patent covering anti‑PD‑1/anti‑CTLA‑4 regimens for MSI‑H colorectal cancer, citing anticipation and obviousness over multiple clinical‑trial disclosures. The petition argues no secondary considerations or discretionary grounds support the patent’s validity.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 48 claims of a reissued patent covering GPU‑based artificial neural‑network processing, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references including its own Nickolls GPU patent, an ANN conference paper, the Tamura Japanese patent, and the GPU Gems book.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft seeks to invalidate Dialect’s 9,495,957 patent covering natural‑language processing in mobile devices, arguing that claims 7 and 8 are obvious over prior art such as Maes, Coffman, Kennewick and Weissman, and urging the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑5 of U.S. Patent 11,069,337, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over prior‑art references Shin, Shimomura, and Kristjansson.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple has filed a petition to institute an IPR against ImberaTek’s U.S. Pat. No. 11,071,207, asserting that claims 1‑6 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 13‑15, 17‑18 of Dialect’s 9,263,039 patent, asserting they are obvious over prior art from Maes and Ross. The petition argues the examiner never evaluated this combination and that discretionary factors favor institution.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 33 claims of ImberaTek’s 2010 patent on embedded circuit‑board components, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate 36 claims of ImberaTek's 7,989,944 patent covering embedded components in circuit boards, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
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.