US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 179 of 291 · 8,722 total
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
R‑Pac International seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging Adasa’s RFID tag patent. The petitioner alleges the Board abused discretion by refusing a preliminary reply and misapplying prior‑art combinations.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple’s petition to review Proxsense’s U.S. Patent 8,646,042 was instituted, and the Board approved Apple’s motion to join the parallel Google IPR. The decision rests on multiple prior‑art combinations showing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
Court decision.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
Adasa’s counsel rebuts r‑pac’s request for a Director Review, asserting the petition failed to satisfy §325(d) requirements and that the cited prior art was already considered. The Board’s denial of institution is defended as proper and non‑abusive.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
The PTAB Director acknowledged receipt of r-pac International Corp’s request for Director Review in IPR2024-01416 concerning Adasa Inc’s patent 9,798,967. The patent owner may file a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’042 patent covering RFID‑enabled hybrid devices, arguing that all asserted claims are obvious over prior art such as Dua and Buer and requesting the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. v.Converter Manufacturing LLC
Ningbo Linhua Plastic seeks an IPR on Converter Manufacturing’s 10,562,222 patent covering thermoformed plastic trays with smooth edges. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art (Portelli and Meadors) and urges the PTAB to institute the review despite discretionary denial arguments.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’042 patent covering hybrid devices with personal digital keys and receiver‑decoder circuits, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
r-pac International Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Adasa’s RFID patent, arguing obviousness over RFID for Dummies, the Traub patent, and EPC tag standards. The petition stresses that the prior art combination was never before considered by the USPTO, and discretionary factors favor institution.
Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. v.Converter Manufacturing LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. against Converter Manufacturing LLC's patent, finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over prior art references like Portelli and Meadors.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
The PTAB denied R-pac International Corporation's IPR challenge against Adasa Inc.'s RFID patent, finding that the prior art presented was cumulative to references already before the Office. The denial was based on Petitioner failing to show material Examiner error under Section 325(d).
Apple Inc. v.--
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable in this final IPR decision. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over prior art references (Buer, Dua, Kotola) for the hybrid device technology.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable over the combination of prior art references Giobbi '157, Giobbi '139, and Dua. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding § 112(f) limitations, confirming that key terms like 'PDK' and 'RDC' convey definite structure to a POSITA.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Petitioner seeks to sustain PTAB institution of an IPR over Stratasys’s 3D‑printer patent, arguing the Board correctly applied Fintiv factors and its broad stipulation blocks discretionary denial.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Feit Electric’s request for review of the Board’s order to deny its motion to terminate IPR2025-00260, finding the request improper under the regulations.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys seeks Director review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its 3D‑printing patent, arguing the panel misapplied the Fintiv factors and over‑relied on a stipulation. The petition highlights the actual trial date, discovery investment, and identical parties as reasons for discretionary denial.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Feit Electric’s 8604678 LED patent, covering claims 1 and 11‑14, and ordered consolidation with a related IPR. Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Court decision.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology petitions to invalidate Stratasys' 3D‑printer heated‑bed patent, asserting that all 15 claims are obvious over a combination of existing 3D‑printing references.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Savant Technologies (GE Lighting) petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1 and 11‑14 of Feit Electric’s white‑light LED patent, arguing they are obvious over several LED‑related publications. The petition seeks institution of inter‑partes review.
ELONG INTERNATIONAL USA INC. et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Elong International and Xiamen Longstar have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Feit Electric’s white‑light LED patent, arguing the claims are obvious over several LED‑lighting references. The petition cites Basin‑2007, Krummacher, Hussell and others as prior art.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims in the '660 patent, relating to 3D printing. The Board relied heavily on obviousness (103) arguments using combinations of prior art references like Cable/Naware and Comb/Tummala.
UATP IP, LLC et al. v.Slick Slide LLC
UATP IP petitions PTAB to invalidate Slick Slide's low‑friction slide patent, asserting obviousness over Phillips, Fallgatter, and a nylon‑mesh product, plus lack of enablement and indefiniteness. The petition seeks institution and a finding that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
UATP IP, LLC et al. v.Slick Slide LLC
UATP IP successfully challenged the patentability of claims related to low-friction slide systems and mesh layers. The PTAB granted institution after finding likelihood of unpatentability, moving the case toward trial preparation while providing preliminary claim construction guidance on key terms.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed a rehearing request challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR on the grounds that the agency’s retroactive policy change violated due process, the APA, and statutory limits. The petition seeks reinstatement of the Board’s original institution decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s network‑stack API patent. The Owner argues the Board misapplied discretionary‑denial factors and erred on claim construction. A termination would end the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research files a response to Samsung’s request for rehearing, defending the PTAB’s denial of institution and the recission of the Vidal Memo. The brief argues that discretionary denial is statutory and that Samsung should have foreseen the rescission.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Court decision.
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.