US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 175 of 188 · 5,620 total
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB sent an email directing Samsung Austin Semiconductor to file a limited 15‑page response to a Director Review request for IPR2024‑00534 and IPR2024‑00535, prohibiting new evidence and additional briefings.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for a review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00534 concerning patent 9,138,862. The order affirms the earlier IPR outcome and provides no further relief.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture has filed a petition for post‑grant review of Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s U.S. Patent 11,659,803 covering a corn variety. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art patents, lack of specific utility, and raises a novel legal question about plant utility patents.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.
Petitioners T-Mobile USA and AT&T Services challenge four claims of the '662 Patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) and priority date rejection (35 U.S.C. § 102). They argue that combining prior art references Lee et al. and Kim et al. renders the claimed carrier aggregation/HARQ methods obvious. The petition also challenges the patent's priority, arguing lack of support for specific limitations.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's patent (9138862) in a Petition, asserting that various prior art references anticipate or render obvious the claimed CMP pad dresser technology. The arguments center on how Sung’026 and combinations with other references teach all limitations of the claims regarding particle arrangement and cutting depths.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the '802 Patent covering Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP) pad dressing technology. The Petitioner argues that prior art references, including Tsai et al., anticipate or render obvious all 21 claimed claims. This is a foundational challenge to the patent's validity in semiconductor manufacturing.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's '270 Patent before the PTAB, asserting that claims related to CMP pad conditioning are obvious. The petition relies heavily on combinations of prior art references (Chou and Sung’479) to demonstrate non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of a PGR petition challenging the patentability of an inbred maize variety, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of showing unpatentability on merits. The Board specifically noted the lack of evidence regarding the claimed genotype and found no unsettled legal questions warranting institutional review.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
Teladoc Health's IPR petition against Data Health Partners was denied by the PTAB, failing to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow construction of 'without input from the clients,' reinforcing its exclusion of client-initiated data when generating scores.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.
A group of major carriers, including T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Nokia, and Ericsson, challenged the validity of a patent owned by Wireless Alliance using obviousness grounds. The PTAB denied institution, finding that the petition lacked compelling merits despite the advanced stage of related district court litigation.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB granted institution for all 21 claims in this IPR, finding sufficient evidence of record that prior art (Tsai, Sung '026, Sung '146) anticipates or renders obvious the claimed technology. The decision was reached despite concerns regarding parallel district court litigation involving Samsung and other entities.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that most claims (1-9 and 12-21) of the '802 patent were unpatentable over prior art references, primarily Tsai. The Board relied heavily on anticipation and obviousness grounds, while also addressing written description challenges to specific claim limitations.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB found all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9138862 unpatentable by anticipation or obviousness over Sung ’026. The technology relates to Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP) pad conditioning methods, and the Board concluded that Petitioner successfully established invalidity across all grounds presented.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board accepted the Petitioner's argument that combining Chou and Sung ’479 provided sufficient motivation to achieve the claimed narrow variation in CMP technology.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
Teladoc Health, Inc. challenges the validity of Data Health Partners' patent (11144554) in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the goal-tracking system is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Douglas, Wager, Chitiveli, Klotsche, and Koh, to invalidate numerous claims related to client/patient progress tracking in healthcare.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
Teladoc Health successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Data Health Partners' patent (US 11144554), challenging its obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all grounds, leading to institution for 18 claims.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that numerous claims of the patent were unpatentable based on obviousness. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that various combinations of prior art references rendered the claimed features predictable to one skilled in the art.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Aptiv has filed objections to more than 40 exhibits submitted by Microchip in IPR2024‑00495, arguing they are irrelevant, lack foundation, or contain hearsay. The objections cite Federal Rules of Evidence and seek to exclude the material from the trial that has already been instituted.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology challenges Aptiv’s USB‑hub patent, arguing the PTAB’s denial of institution was an abuse of discretion for failing to construe “having” and to analyze prior art. The petitioner seeks Director Review to overturn the decision.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution in two IPRs that target Aptiv’s USB‑hub patent. The petitioner alleges the Board abused its discretion by omitting claim construction and prior‑art analysis. The request seeks reversal of the denial.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Aptiv Technologies withdrew its request for Director Review in the IPR against Microchip Technology, with Microchip not opposing. The withdrawal is made without prejudice to appeal the Final Written Decision.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Aptiv’s U.S. Patent 10,545,899, alleging the Board failed to analyze prior art and apply agreed claim construction.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip files a brief urging the PTAB Director to deny Aptiv’s request for review of the Board’s obviousness ruling on claims 13‑14 of U.S. Patent 9,619,420, a USB switching invention.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The PTAB Director has acknowledged a Director Review request in IPR2024-00495 and limited the petitioner’s response to a 15‑page brief filed within five business days, prohibiting new evidence or additional briefing.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Aptiv Technologies seeks Director review of the PTAB’s decision that claims 13 and 14 of its automotive connectivity patent are unpatentable. The owner contends the Board misapplied the particularity requirement, shifted the burden of proof, and ignored secondary‑considerations evidence. The request targets the Board’s Final Written Decision.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The Director denied Microchip Technology's request for review of the institution decisions that had denied institution of its IPRs against Aptiv's vehicle communication patent. The denial leaves the institution denials intact.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's patent via an IPR petition, arguing the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references. The petitioner asserts that known concepts regarding location tracking and message boards render the claimed invention predictable and trivial to implement.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology filed a Petition with the PTAB challenging claims of Aptiv Technologies' patent 9619420, arguing that the USB hub technology is obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining existing components like host-to-host bridges and dual-role switching functionality renders the claimed invention predictable to a person skilled in the art.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The PTAB denied Microchip Technology's IPR against Aptiv Technologies, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing due to contingent and unsupported claim construction arguments.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms, Inc. successfully secured institution of its Inter Partes Review against Sitnet's patent 9877345. The Board found that the petitioner met the likelihood standard for obviousness over multiple prior art references (Gage, Mitchell, Shida).
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.