US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 176 of 188 · 5,620 total
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully secured institution in its IPR challenge against Sitnet, LLC's '454 patent. The Board found sufficient support for obviousness over Amidon and Wong/Gogic, advancing the dispute to trial.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Aptiv Technologies AG regarding USB connectivity claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references Chang and Chang II for independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology successfully petitioned to institute trial on several claims of Aptiv Technologies' patent regarding USB Hub/Bridge Systems, overcoming initial objections from the Patent Owner. The Board adopted a judicial correction of Claim 13, revising 'hub' to 'host', which significantly shaped the scope of the dispute.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board found obviousness over single and combined prior art references (Gage/Mitchell) for original claims, and also determined substitute claims failed both 103 and 101 standards.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision finding all 20 claims of the patent unpatentable over a combination of Burfeind and Crowley. The Board adopted the petitioner's argument that the challenged claims were obvious, specifically noting that Crowley provided motivation to integrate location-based features into Burfeind's event management system.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
The PTAB found that Claims 1-9 and 20 are unpatentable over prior art references (Amidon, Wong, Gogic) based on obviousness. Additionally, the Board granted an Adverse Judgment to cancel claims 10-19.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 13 and 14 unpatentable over prior art references Chang and Chang II based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's definition of POSITA and corrected a scrivener's error in claim 13, replacing 'hub' with 'host'.
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
CIMBRIA SRL and 3U Vision settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,666,947, leading to a joint motion that terminated the post‑grant review. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
Cimbria SRL and 3U Vision SRL jointly moved to terminate the Post‑Grant Review of U.S. Patent 11,666,947 after reaching a confidential settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding on public‑policy grounds.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco’s authorized response rebuts Umbra’s claim‑construction arguments, emphasizing that the Board’s interpretation of “end‑to‑end tunnel” aligns with the intrinsic record and that Umbra’s expert and prosecution‑history arguments lack support.
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
SAP America and ISIX IP reached a settlement, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review of patent 6,308,178. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
SAP America and ISIX IP jointly filed a motion requesting that their settlement agreement be kept confidential and separate from the patent file under statutory confidentiality provisions.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
Samsung and Cobblestone Wireless have settled the IPR concerning patent 7,924,802. The parties jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
Samsung Electronics and Cobblestone Wireless settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,924,802, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
SAP America and ISIX IP settled their dispute over a 1999 ERP‑related patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided any merits, allowing termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The USPTO denied Cisco Systems' request for Director Review of the institution decision in the IPR against Umbra Technologies' patent 10,630,505. The denial leaves the institution decision intact.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra Technologies requests a Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that invalidated its 10,630,505 patent covering end‑to‑end network tunnels. The patent owner contends the Board’s new claim construction and disregard of expert testimony were erroneous, seeking reversal and reinstatement of claims 1‑20.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction for an “end-to-end tunnel” and seeking to vacate the institution of review for Cisco’s IPR. The Board had instituted the IPR based on an obviousness finding over Hankins and Munger references.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra Technologies has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its ’595 patent. The petition argues the panel erred by equating the patent’s specific “list of available servers” request with a generic “services” request in the Hankins prior art, and by using the patent itself as a roadmap. It asks the Director to vacate the institution and terminate the proceeding.
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
Cimbria SRL, backed by AGCO, has filed a PGR petition challenging all 15 claims of 3U Vision’s automated sorting‑machine patent, asserting indefiniteness and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The PTAB denied Cisco's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00497 concerning Umbra's patent 10,630,505.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra has requested a Director Review of IPR2024-00497. Cisco may file a limited 15‑page response without new evidence, and the Director will decide on the request.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
Samsung Electronics America filed a petition challenging the validity of Cobblestone Wireless's '802 patent, asserting that its multi-carrier transmission claims are obvious in light of mid-2000s prior art. The petitioner argues that established technologies like Suzuki and Fernandez render the claimed methods predictable modifications to known systems.
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
Cimbra SRL challenged 3U Vision's optical sorting patent (11666947) on grounds of obviousness and indefiniteness, specifically over the prior art reference ElMasry. The PTAB preliminarily agreed that it is more likely than not that at least one claim would be unpatentable, instituting the proceeding for trial phase.
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR against ISIX IP LLC's patent (6308178), finding sufficient evidence that SAP America, Inc. had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Brann and Suresh. The Board adopted key claim constructions, notably rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow view of 'application.'
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of success for Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in challenging Cobblestone Wireless LLC's patent (7924802). The Board preliminarily determined that the preamble 'in a wireless communication channel' is not limiting, allowing the IPR to proceed on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102).
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to challenge Umbra Technologies' patent (10630505) regarding Global Virtual Network optimization claims. The PTAB institution decision found reasonable likelihood of success based on obviousness over prior art combinations, specifically citing Hankins and Munger for several key claims.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The PTAB found all 20 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The Board adopted the Petitioner's analysis, concluding that the claimed technology was obvious over Hankins alone or in combination with Munger and Treuhaft.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the Petitioner failed to prove unpatentability for claims 15-20 of the '595 patent. Claims 1-14 were mooted by disclaimer, resulting in no challenged claims being found unpatentable.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products’ IPR petition against Evonik’s 10,471,380 B2 membrane‑gas‑separation patent is met with a detailed preliminary response. Evonik argues the petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability, misinterprets the claims, and that the cited references teach away. The Owner seeks denial of institution.
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.