US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 179 of 286 · 8,574 total
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑19 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent No. 10,817,157, arguing that the claimed database‑provisioning UI is obvious over known prior art. The petition also argues there is no basis for discretionary denial, urging the Board to institute review.
Meta Platforms Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Mullen Industries’ location‑based AR gaming patent (U.S. 10,179,277). The petition relies on obviousness grounds under §103, citing Jaszlics and Rallison as prior art, and argues no discretionary denial factors apply.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑30 of Nutanix’s ’340 database‑management patent, arguing obviousness over Chikkanayakanahally and Merriman. The petition also argues there is no basis for discretionary denial.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals has filed a petition to invalidate all 20 claims of Nivagen’s U.S. Patent 11,925,661 covering ready‑to‑use potassium phosphate solutions, citing multiple prior‑art references and lack of written‑description support.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
MIM Software has filed a petition to invalidate Progenics' U.S. Patent 11,894,141, asserting that its claims on prostate‑cancer imaging are obvious over prior‑art references such as Maier, Huang and Armor. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues against discretionary denial.
Transcend Information Inc. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Transcend Information has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Truesight Communications' 2015 patent on secure SD‑card content transfer, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution despite related Texas litigation.
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v.Klein Tools Inc.
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate Klein Tools' safety‑helmet patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and anticipation by Klein's own 2019 news release, while also challenging the patent’s priority date due to added matter.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,926,218, which covers mercury‑removal methods for coal‑fired power plants. They contend the claims are obvious over a combination of four prior‑art references and that the claimed additive ratio lacks patentable weight.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 of Applied Optoelectronics’ 9,523,826 patent covering pluggable optical transceiver modules, citing Wu and Mizue as anticipatory prior art.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Milestone Entertainment’s online‑gaming patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition requests institution under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Milestone Entertainment’s U.S. Patent 11,393,279, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art gaming systems. The petition seeks institution of the review under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 37‑43 of ByteWeavr’s ’733 patent as obvious over Chow, Lee and White. The petition argues that a skilled artisan would combine these references to achieve the claimed agent‑based network functionality.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed a petition for inter partes review of Milestone Entertainment’s U.S. Patent No. 10,825,294, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior art relating to virtual currency in games. The petition relies on Schneier143 and Okita references and seeks institution of the review.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Milestone Entertainment’s 10,650,635 patent covering virtual‑currency mechanisms in games, arguing obviousness over prior‑art patents Schneier143 and Okita.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging Milestone Entertainment’s ’336 gaming patent, asserting obviousness over Kelly683 and over Walker combined with Schneier143. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability for 19 claims.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Mullen Industries’ AR gaming patent (US 11,033,821), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and lack of written description. The petition seeks institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
Aroma360 seeks an IPR of Air Esscentials' 10,583,449 patent covering fluid‑dispersion assemblies for fragrance delivery, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and anticipation by a Chinese utility model.
Apple Inc. v.Ziklag IP LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of the ’128 patent covering cable‑based music distribution, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Yurt and Logan) and that discretionary denial is improper.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Credo’s ’111 patent covering chip‑to‑module pre‑equalization techniques. The petition relies on obviousness over Lugthart‑706, Das Sharma, and Mezer, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
DataDome S.A. et al. v.Arkose Labs Holdings, Inc.
DataDome petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Arkose Labs' robot‑proof website patent, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over prior art such as Lim, Guthrie, and Lillibridge. The petition argues no discretionary denial grounds exist and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of SoundClear's 9,031,259 patent covering noise‑reduction apparatuses, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references and seeking institution of the review.
GetTattle, Inc. v.AfterWords, Inc.
GetTattle petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of AfterWords' ‘811 patent covering transaction‑specific surveys. The petition relies on two prior‑art publications, Douglas and Ganesh, asserting they anticipate all claimed elements. Claim constructions are provided to bolster the anticipation argument.
SmartSky Networks, LLC v.Gogo Business Aviation LLC et al.
SmartSky Networks has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Gogo’s ‘600 ATG communication patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references.
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. et al. v.Kolon Industries, Inc.
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. has filed an IPR petition challenging Kolon Industries' 9,617,663 patent on hybrid tire cords, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution, arguing strong statutory and discretionary support.
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. et al. v.Kolon Industries, Inc.
Hyosung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Kolon’s 9,789,731 patent covering hybrid nylon‑aramid tire cords, arguing that all seven claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against SitePro's remote fluid‑handling patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Kahn and Gutierrez patents and highlighting discretionary factors favoring institution.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of SitePro’s ‘680 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling devices, citing four prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary factors favor institution.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro's 8,649,909 patent covering remote control of oil‑field fluid‑handling devices. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Cardamone, Almadi, and Abdallah—to argue anticipation or obviousness of all challenged claims. Discretionary factors favor institution.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s fluid‑handling control patent, asserting that three prior‑art references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims and that discretionary factors favor institution.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s NFC‑related patent 9,483,722, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over prior art such as Finkenzeller, Kerdraon, Koh, and Bangs. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
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.