US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 176 of 286 · 8,574 total
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging KPN’s 8,660,560 patent covering automatic neighbor‑cell list updates, asserting obviousness over multiple Ericsson patents and 3GPP standards.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cellular South’s 10,218,954 patent covering video‑to‑data methods, asserting obviousness over Kritt, Fontana, and Lau references and noting no discretionary denial issues.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks to invalidate Ningde Amperex’s 2023 lithium‑ion battery separator patent by alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR under Section 325(d).
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sterling Computers' 7,716,217 patent covering email relevance scoring, citing obviousness over Dumais, Rose, and a Rose‑Bieganski combination.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.EXELIXIS, INC.
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Exelixis’s U.S. 12,128,039 patent, arguing obviousness over Brown combined with Kubo and Robinson references.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s ’747 patent covering FET manufacturing methods. They argue the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America seeks an IPR on Valtrus’s 6,889,244 patent covering fault‑tolerant messaging, arguing the claims are obvious over Bowman, Vahalia and Tuxedo. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing that the Blaser, Calder and Schmidt-449 references render the claims obvious under §103. The petition also asserts that any discretionary denial would be improper.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 of Maxell’s 7,850,313 projector patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑18 of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing obviousness over Elnozahy and Draves and lack of written‑description support. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
NXP and Qualcomm have filed an IPR petition challenging Redstone Logics' 8,549,339 patent covering multi‑core processors with independent voltage and clock domains, seeking cancellation of ten claims on obviousness grounds.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging XtreamEdge’s ’753 patent covering blade‑server packet identifiers and memory arrangements, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier container‑virtualization technologies such as Linux VServer, Solaris Zones, and Zap pods.
Google LLC v.BrodTi Inc.
Google LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate BrodTi Inc.’s 11,416,898 patent covering internet‑based project financing via advertising. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Petitioners seek cancellation of all 25 claims of DISH’s multi‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art systems.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 28 claims of U.S. Patent 10,668,430 covering mercury‑removal technology for coal‑fired power plants. The petition relies on obviousness and anticipation arguments over four prior‑art references and urges the Board not to deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple petition the PTAB to invalidate all 11 claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’847 MOS transistor patent, citing multiple prior‑art references that anticipate or render the claims obvious under §§102 and 103.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy group petitions the PTAB to institute IPR of U.S. Patent 10,668,430 covering mercury removal methods, arguing obviousness and lack of priority support.
SIG Sauer, Inc. v.Lone Star Future Weapons, Inc. et al.
SIG Sauer has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,919,238, asserting that the weapon‑system claims are anticipated or obvious over Holek, Rossier, and Chinn. The petition seeks institution of the IPR to cancel all 17 challenged claims.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
Padagis seeks to invalidate Neurelis' 11,241,414 patent covering intranasal benzodiazepine solutions, arguing obviousness over Gwozdz and Meezan and invoking collateral estoppel from a prior IPR.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of Valtrus’s ’182 data‑redundancy patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
Dabico Airport Solutions has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of AXA Power’s preconditioned‑air‑unit patent, asserting that the claimed features are obvious over multiple HVAC prior‑arts. The petition cites Kreymer, Taras, Takahashi, Carrier and Lechmotoren as teaching the same elements.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Mojawa filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Shenzhou Shokz’s bone‑conduction headphone patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Intel Corporation et al. v.USTA Technology, LLC
Intel and Lenovo have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 53 and 95 of USTA Technology’s RE47,720 patent, arguing obviousness based on a combination of prior‑art references covering OFDM/MIMO techniques.
NKT Photonics Inc. et al. v.Omni Continuum LLC
NKT Photonics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Omni Continuum's 7,433,116 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Shaw and Islam references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on 25 claims covering Raman‑based infrared light sources.
Ultrahuman Healthcare PVT. LTD et al. v.Ouraring Inc. et al.
Ultrahuman Healthcare has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of Oura's finger‑worn health‑monitoring ring, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking §325(d) to avoid denial.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate QPrivacy’s U.S. 11,106,824 patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art IDS patents (Burns, Yang, and Wittenberg). The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s ’910 battery electrolyte patent, asserting that 21 claims are obvious over a suite of Chinese and foreign prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR under § 103, arguing the claims add no inventive contribution. The Board has yet to decide on institution.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery has filed a corrected IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Ningde Amperex’s 2023 lithium‑ion battery electrolyte patent. The petition relies on multiple foreign and U.S. references that allegedly disclose the same dinitrile, trinitrile and propyl propionate compositions. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol petitions the PTAB to invalidate Credo’s ’233 active‑cable patent, asserting that prior‑art references render all twenty claims obvious. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
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.