US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 174 of 286 · 8,574 total
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,459,863 covering electric‑powered multi‑plunger fracturing pump systems. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references, chiefly Fischer, to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple files an IPR seeking to invalidate ImberaTek’s 7,732,909 patent on embedded circuit‑board components, arguing all 33 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of VirtaMove’s 7,519,814 patent, arguing they are obvious over existing container‑virtualization technologies such as Osman, Tucker, Bandhole, and Gélinas.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of ControlTec’s 7,207,181 patent covering condensation control in refrigerated display cases. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for IPR against iCashe’s 9,208,423 patent covering a mobile phone that emulates a magnetic‑card swipe. The petition relies on Doughty, Bursch and Fox references to argue obviousness under §103 and contends that discretionary denial does not apply.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix seeks IPR of SitePro’s 11,726,504 patent covering remote fluid‑handling control, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over Cardamone, Kahn, and SCADA references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition to invalidate iCashe’s U.S. Patent 11,270,174 covering a mobile phone that emulates a magnetic‑card swipe. The petition relies on a series of prior‑art references to argue obviousness and asserts that PTAB discretion should not be exercised.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed a petition to invalidate Dialect’s 607 patent covering multimodal speech processing, arguing obviousness over Maes and a combination of Maes, Coffman, and Ittycheriah, and urging the PTAB to institute review.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s 9,898,014 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling devices, asserting that Kahn and Gutierrez patents anticipate or render the claims obvious. The petition stresses strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2, 5, 7‑8, and 11 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’395 patent on the ground of obviousness over Moir and Martínez. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of iCashe’s NFC smartcard patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Bangs, Kerdraon, and Koh references. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references and that discretionary denial does not apply.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 12 and 13 of Dialect’s 7,640,160 patent, arguing they are obvious over Maes, Coffman, and Ross references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s ‘403 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling devices, citing Kahn, Almadi, and Gutierrez as anticipatory and obvious prior art.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s ’156 patent covering mobile‑phone magnetic‑stripe emulation. The petition relies on Doughty and Fox as prior art and argues that the examiner failed to consider these references, making the claims unpatentable under §§102 and 103.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate iCashe’s 8,403,219 patent covering smartcard integration in mobile phones. The petition relies on the Fox and Takekawa references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s NFC patent (U.S. 11,694,053), asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bangs, Kerdraon, Koh, and Fisher. The petition seeks institution on claims 1‑8 and 17‑20 under §§102 and 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑5 and 7‑20 of Keyless Licensing’s ’144 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bast, Wedel, Benoit and Jambhekar.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
Revvo Technologies petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cerebrum Sensor’s TPMS patent, arguing that 27 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging three claims of Optimum Imaging’s 8,451,339 camera‑aberration patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art. The petition seeks institution and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.
Linkplay Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sonos’s ’357 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Richenstein, Chatterton, the MOST‑2.0 spec, and RFC1889. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and requests institution of the review.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging Stratasys' 3D‑printer configuration patent (US 11,886,774), asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR on Maxell’s ‘188 patent, asserting that claims 1‑9 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering thumbnail image editing and protection.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung has filed a petition to institute an IPR against KPN’s U.S. Patent 8,881,235 covering service‑based authentication in cellular networks, arguing that the claims are obvious over 3GPP standards, an IETF draft, Aldera, and Naslund. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under discretionary statutes.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate KAIFI’s ’232 patent covering ubiquitous sensor‑network middleware, arguing that the claims are obvious over earlier publications by Jakobson and Tsetsos. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial, requesting the Board to institute the review.
International Business Machines Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 container‑technology patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as McMillan and Schaefer. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) is unwarranted.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of KAIFI’s ’001 patent covering camera‑based indoor location recognition, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art patents.
OtterBox v.SafeTray Products Ltd.
Otter Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SafeTray’s ’691 patent covering tablet‑grip devices, arguing the invention was well known and obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
Axon, Dedrone and Skydio have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Airspace Systems’ ’711 drone‑flight‑control patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition stresses strong motivation to combine these teachings and seeks institution of the review.
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
UiPath has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Rule 14’s ’679 patent on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Fintiv factors preclude discretionary denial and includes a stipulation against parallel district‑court litigation.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle‑personalization patent, arguing it is anticipated or obvious over earlier car‑control technologies such as Yasui, Morehouse, Ikeda, and Zellner.
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.