US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 177 of 188 · 5,620 total
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products challenges EVONIK's membrane separation patent (10471380) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed system configurations are predictable combinations of teachings from prior art references like Ungerank and Scholz.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products challenges EVONIK's membrane technology patent (10471380), arguing the claims are obvious over prior art references Ungerank and Scholz. The petitioner asserts that skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine these teachings to achieve the claimed features in gas separation.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR on 23 claims of EVONIK's patent, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least Claim 1 would be obvious over Ungerank and Scholz. The Board rejected arguments that the prior art taught away from the claimed invention.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
The IPR petition against EVONIK's gas separation membrane technology failed as the Petitioner could not establish unpatentability. The Board found that the combination of cited prior art references lacked a sufficient motivation to combine, upholding the patent's validity.
Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.HENGST SE
Champion Laboratories successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against HENGST SE's patent (9023203). The petition asserts that key claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, including Yokoyama and Cline.
Apple Inc. v.RJ Technology LLC
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of RJ Technology LLC's patent '641, asserting that claims 1-18 are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Uemura and Abe. The petitioner argues that the claimed battery characteristics are fully disclosed or rendered obvious by combining these existing technologies.
Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.HENGST SE
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR challenge against HENGST SE's patent, finding that Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard for claim 1 despite parallel district court litigation. The Board determined that Fintiv factors outweighed those favoring discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.RJ Technology LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of the patent unpatentable as obvious in view of prior art. The Board focused heavily on claim construction, specifically defining 'charge cut-off voltage' based on practical full-cell operation rather than just applied charging potential. Claims 2–4 and 6–18 were found invalid under 103.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited and ICPillar LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,367,657. The parties filed a joint motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Eye Therapies jointly request that their settlement agreement be kept confidential and separate from the IPR patent file.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Eye Therapies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,596,600 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited and patent owner ICPillar LLC have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,367,657. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under statutory authority.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited and ICPillar LLC settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,367,657, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement and dismissed the proceedings.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
ICPillar LLC filed a Director review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute IPR2024-00566 against Arm Limited, arguing the panel misapplied discretionary denial guidance.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
ICPillar LLC requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Arm Limited’s patent, arguing the panel misapplied Fintiv guidance and that the petitioner’s stipulations were untimely.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s and Eye Therapies settled their IPR dispute, resulting in a joint motion that terminated the proceedings. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
The USPTO denied Arm Limited's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00566 concerning patent 9,367,657. The original institution decision remains in effect.
i4F Licensing NV v.VILOX AB
i4F Licensing NV initiated an IPR challenging VILOX AB's patent (11421425) covering floor panel joining systems. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated by Miller and rendered obvious over Miller alone or in view of Roy.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited petitioned the PTAB to challenge ICPillar LLC's patent 9367657 on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art references, including Banerjee and Rompaey/CoWare I, teach the claimed hardware/software co-design functionality. The Board has instituted the matter due to compelling merits in the challenger's arguments.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories challenges the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 11,596,600 regarding brimonidine eye drops using obviousness over prior art. The Petition argues that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have been motivated to use low concentrations for treating ocular redness. The Board is urged to deny institution based on Hatch-Waxman goals and alleged Examiner error.
i4F Licensing NV v.VILOX AB
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by i4F Licensing NV against VILOX AB's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient support for anticipation or obviousness over prior art references Miller and Roy. The Board specifically found insufficient evidence regarding a curved horizontal locking surface disclosed in Miller.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc et al. v.The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania et al.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. successfully challenged several claims of The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania in an IPR proceeding regarding gene therapy/AAV technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) using combinations of prior art references.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
The PTAB instituted the IPR petition challenging key claims of a patent related to vasoconstriction agents for eye redness. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, despite arguments from the Patent Owner regarding prior art limitations and adverse events.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc et al. v.The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania et al.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision upholding the validity of claim 8 in this gene therapy IPR. The decision found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient motivation or reasonable expectation of success to combine prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
Ceva Santé Animale S.A. filed an IPR challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,806,124, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on multiple combinations of prior art references (Gershman, Pierre, Yavnai, Tao) related to poultry sexing and image analysis.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.Identitii Limited
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. filed a petition challenging Identitii Limited's patent (10984413), arguing that the claims are obvious under Section 103. The petitioner contends that combining Smith and Seger renders nearly all claimed features predictable for POSITA in financial technology.
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR challenge against Targan, Inc.'s patent (10806124), finding that the Petitioner presented new and non-cumulative prior art combinations. The case involves poultry production technology, with Ceva Sante Animal S.A. as the petitioner.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.Identitii Limited
The PTAB denied JPMorgan Chase Bank's IPR against Identitii Limited, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Kennedy and Kurani-816.
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
The PTAB found that claims 1-15 of the patent are unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board's construction of 'unrestrained chick' was crucial, defining it as a chick free to open its wings on the moving platform.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The Board denied Comcast’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in the IPR concerning Entropic Communications’ patent 11,399,206. The denial applies to three related IPRs filed by the same parties.
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.