US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 177 of 286 · 8,574 total
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 5‑14 of Maxell’s ’493 electric‑camera patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and arguing against discretionary denial.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Maxell’s ’072 video‑editing patent, asserting that five prior‑art references render the claims obvious. The petition argues against discretionary denial and cites a prior Board decision that found similar claims unpatentable.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Maxell’s ’449 patent covering video‑thumbnail navigation. The petition argues that all 16 claims are obvious over prior art references Bryant, Kaplan and Horn, and seeks institution of the review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Vasu Holdings' ’996 patent covering wireless handover and timer‑based power management. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Cerence’s ’486 patent on contrastive‑stress speech synthesis, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art TTS systems.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cerence’s U.S. Patent 7,680,334 covering handwriting‑recognition methods. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute the review.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Ningde Amperex’s U.S. Patent 11,923,498, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition argues no discretionary factors oppose institution.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
AT&T and Nokia seek IPR cancellation of a G.fast‑related patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art Bingham, Strobel, and ITU contributions Wei and Kuipers.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm petitions the PTAB to institute IPR on Welch Allyn’s 9,155,484 wearable ECG sensor patent, asserting obviousness over Matsumura, Jensen and Ozguz. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC petitions the PTAB to invalidate Advanced Integrated Circuit Process's 7,579,227 patent covering high‑k gate dielectric structures, arguing obviousness and anticipation based on multiple prior publications.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s U.S. Patent 7,923,764 covering high‑k gate dielectric techniques. The petition relies on a multitude of prior‑art references to argue that each claim is obvious. The case is pending institution.
Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation
Charles River Laboratories petitions the PTAB to invalidate claim 21 of Seikagaku’s ’318 patent on recombinant Factor C proteins, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and priority, and asserting obviousness over Mizumura combined with the ’498 PCT and over Mizumura combined with McClymont.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to invalidate 31 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing no discretionary denial applies.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ArcelorMittal
POSCO has filed an IPR petition challenging ArcelorMittal’s 2021 steel‑coating patent, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering hot‑stamped steel processes.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s 2015 CDN patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging Orca Security’s U.S. Patent No. 11,627,154, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Keren and Morgan. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.
Chinese challengers have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of LithiumHub’s ‘994 starter‑battery patent, arguing obviousness over six prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute the review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vasu Holdings' patent covering seamless handoff from Wi‑Fi to cellular networks. The petition relies on obviousness arguments using four prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial does not apply.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks to invalidate Align Technology's 2023 patent on multilayer dental aligners, arguing that all claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Kalili, Porter, Texin 990R, Wen, and Tadros. The petition requests the PTAB to institute review and cancel the challenged claims.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
Shenzhen Fbtech and LiTime have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate LithiumHub’s 9,954,207 solid‑state lithium battery patent. They rely on prior art such as Pevear, Porsche, Poff, Grant and Koebler to argue obviousness and lack of novelty across all 21 claims.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks PTAB review of Align Technology's 10,973,613 patent covering multilayer dental aligners, arguing all 22 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition cites Tadros, Kalili, Porter, Wen, and Texin 990R as teaching the same polymer layers and configurations.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 2 and 3 of Resonant’s ’337 haptic‑feedback patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking to join Apple’s parallel IPR.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks an IPR to invalidate Align Technology’s 11,648,090 patent covering multilayer dental aligners. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over prior‑art polymer aligner references. No institution decision has been made yet.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and no discretionary denial grounds.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ArcelorMittal
POSCO has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of ArcelorMittal’s hot‑stamped coated steel patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition argues that the references were not considered during prosecution and that a skilled artisan would have combined them to achieve the claimed inventions.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Align’s 10,791,936 dental scanning patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art references. The petition seeks a finding of unpatentability for the entire claim set.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of Align Technology’s orthodontic treatment‑planning patent (US 10,524,879), alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the round‑tripping collision‑avoidance technique is well‑known.
Caihong Display Devices Co. Ltd. v.Corning Inc.
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Corning’s 2010 glass‑substrate patent, asserting obviousness over Miwa and Bange and anticipation by Miwa. The petition includes an expert declaration and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Align Technology’s orthodontic treatment‑planning patent, arguing the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references.
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.