US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 175 of 291 · 8,722 total
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
Stara filed a petition for Director Review seeking to invalidate claims of AGCO’s 11,665,989 patent covering rotating toolbar mechanisms for agricultural implements. The petitioner alleges the Board erred in denying institution, citing multiple prior‑art references that disclose all claim elements. The request asks the Director to reverse the decision.
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
STARA has requested Director Review of IPR2024-01459 against AGCO's patent 11,665,989. The patent owner may respond within five business days, limited to five pages and without new evidence.
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
Deere & Company seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against a grading‑system patent owned by David’s Dozer V‑Loc System. The patent owner contends the petition misstates the law on motivation to combine and that the prior‑art teaches away, making review futile.
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
Deere & Company requested a Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against David’s Dozer V‑Loc System’s patent. The Director denied the request, leaving the original denial in place.
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
The USPTO denied STARA’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against AGCO’s farm‑equipment patent (US 11,665,989). The institution denial therefore remains in effect.
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
STARA petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against AGCO's 11,665,989 patent covering a farm implement contouring toolbar, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 15 claims.
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
Deere & Company filed an IPR petition challenging four claims of a dozer‑blade stabilization patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for any challenged claim. The grounds relied on obviousness (103), utilizing combinations of prior art references including Hubalek and KR’062.
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against a dozer stabilizer patent (10533300). The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically rejecting obviousness grounds based on Funk and Lewis.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 9,390,137 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,390,137 before trial. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,390,137 and jointly filed a request to treat the settlement documents as confidential and to terminate the IPR.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1, 7‑8, and 11 of U.S. Patent 9,538,788 covering an electronic cigarette heating assembly. The challenger argues that the bulb‑with‑heating‑wire configuration was taught by multiple prior‑art references, making the claims obvious under §103.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’137 patent covering context‑aware recommender systems, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Healthier Choices Management Corp.'s electronic cigarette patent (9538788), arguing the claims are obvious in light of prior art.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all four challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9538788 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining various prior art references to show that the claimed vaporizing device was predictable in light of existing technology.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
Home Depot and Security Technology reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01420 covering patent 11,562,402. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under settlement provisions.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
The PTAB denied Home Depot's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs covering a security‑system patent, leaving the institution in place.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
Klein Tools responded to Milwaukee Electric Tool’s request for Director Review, arguing the Board correctly instituted the IPR under Fintiv and §314. The petitioner emphasizes that the ITC overlap arguments are misplaced and that the merits of the petition are strong.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
Security Technology, LLC asks the PTAB Director to deny institution of an IPR filed by Home Depot, arguing the panel misapplied Fintiv discretionary factors and that the petitioner's expert testimony is weak. The request highlights the close timing of the district‑court trial and the substantial prior investment in parallel litigation.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
Home Depot and Security Technology settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,562,402. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the PTAB granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01391 concerning U.S. Patent 9,586,659 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) before any final decision.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. argues that Klein Tools' IPR petition fails on obviousness grounds, citing cumulative prior art and lack of motivation, and seeks denial of institution.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
Milwaukee Electric Tool and Keter seek Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Klein Tools over the Packout storage system. The owners argue the panel misapplied Fintiv factors, especially claim and prior‑art overlap, and failed to consider the lack of a Sotera stipulation. The petition asks for discretionary denial of institution.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. requests Director Review of the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against Klein Tools over a storage‑container patent, arguing the panel misapplied Fintiv factors and ignored claim overlap with a parallel ITC proceeding.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
Home Depot filed a response to the patent owner’s request for Director Review, arguing that all Fintiv factors support instituting the IPR and contesting the owner’s claim‑construction positions. The petitioner also pledged not to raise §103 defenses in the parallel district‑court case.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
Court decision.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.
Home Depot and RavenWhite Security settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,594,823. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR after institution, and the Board granted the termination while keeping the settlement confidential.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.
The PTAB denied Home Depot's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs, leaving the institution of RavenWhite Security's patents intact.
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.