US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 178 of 286 · 8,574 total
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
USAA petitions the PTAB to invalidate Auto Telematics’ vehicle‑behavior logging patent, asserting that all 28 claims are obvious over a combination of existing telematics and accident‑detection references.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over Sheha and Randall references. The petition cites a prior Board institution in an Apple IPR and argues no discretionary denial applies.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 15‑41 of Mullen Industries’ ’117 patent covering wireless device location sharing, citing multiple prior‑art combinations under §103.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Applied Optoelectronics' optical‑transceiver patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
GE Healthcare petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of a Johns Hopkins FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceutical patent, asserting obviousness over US‑633, US‑121, Meletta and Jansen references.
Walmart Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc. et al.
Walmart has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of RavenWhite’s ’823 patent, asserting obviousness over two prior‑art references (Hinton and Varghese) and a lack of written‑description support.
Walmart Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC et al.
Walmart has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Security Technology’s ’402 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition presents two grounds, each covering claims 1‑19, and argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SiOnyx’s 9,064,764 image‑sensor patent. The petition alleges that all 25 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references, presenting 15 distinct obviousness grounds. Institution of the IPR is requested.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight has filed an IPR petition challenging Champion Power’s 2019 dual‑fuel engine patent, asserting that all 24 claims are either obvious or anticipated by a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
Henri Daussi, LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 14 claims of U.S. Patent 9,398,791 covering an oblong diamond cut, citing multiple prior‑art references for lack of novelty and obviousness.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 23 claims of a satellite‑internet patent owned by Intellectual Ventures. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging GenghisComm’s ’786 patent covering OFDM spread‑spectrum methods. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate key claims of Intellectual Ventures' virtual network patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial by the Board.
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑9 of Withrow Networks' 2020 multimedia streaming patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
DataDome S.A. et al. v.Arkose Labs Holdings, Inc.
DataDome has filed a petition to review Arkose Labs’ ‘robot proof website’ patent (U.S. 9,148,427), seeking to invalidate the claims through inter partes review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging GenghisComm’s ’792 OFDM patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues strong merits and seeks institution, while disputing any discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of GenghisComm’s ’508 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Shattil-537 and secondary references Doufexi and Lucent. The petition argues strong merits and cites Fintiv factors to oppose discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 19 claims of GenghisComm’s ’005 OFDM patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues the patent is post‑AIA and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ load‑balancing patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references.
SeaSpine Holdings Corporation et al. v.Jackson, Roger
SeaSpine petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑implant patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over long‑standing screw‑thread designs disclosed in Kirschman, Higbee, Johnson, Boschert and a 2005 publication.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 14 claims of GenghisComm’s ’842 OFDM patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that Fintiv factors favor institution.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services' 11,959,533 patent covering multi‑plunger hydraulic fracturing pumps. The petition asserts that all 25 claims are obvious under §103, relying on a series of prior‑art combinations and argues that institution is proper under the Fintiv and Becton factors.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
Dentsply Sirona has filed a petition for inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s ‘262 patent covering dental and orthopedic CT densitometry. The petitioner relies on three grounds—Massie, Arai, and Pelc—to argue that claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 are anticipated or obvious.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Wireless, LLC
OnePlus Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging ten claims of Pantech's U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Zeira and Yi publications. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank petitions the PTAB to invalidate PACid Technologies' biometric authentication patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition relies on Immega‑Day‑Tomko, Mardikar‑318/Chhabra, and Duffy teachings and argues that institution is warranted under the Fintiv framework.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of the Phelan Group’s driver‑authentication patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate three claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑based gaming patent, arguing they are obvious over the earlier Levine application. The petition cites dismissal of the patent in a related district‑court case and argues no discretionary denial factors apply.
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC v.Facet Technology Corp.
ZF Active Safety files an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Facet Technology’s ’255 patent covering roadway reflectivity assessment, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of Mullen Industries’ AR video‑game patent, asserting obviousness over earlier AR references. The petition seeks institution and argues no discretionary denial applies.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International seeks an IPR to invalidate all ten claims of U.S. Patent 11,957,271, arguing that the coffee‑brewing concepts are fully disclosed in prior‑art patents such as Startz and Coccia. The petition requests institution and cites strong motivation to combine multiple 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.