US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 180 of 286 · 8,574 total
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of Pantech’s LTE dual‑connectivity patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Dudda, Lin, and Pelletier references.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of ControlTec's refrigeration condensation patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 8‑23 of SportsCastr’s live‑streaming patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution under discretionary statutes.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of SportsCastr’s live‑streaming patent, arguing obviousness over Ellis, Herzog, Spivey and Abulikemu and asserting that the examiner failed to consider key prior art.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of KAIFI’s ’518 smart‑home patent, alleging obviousness over the Ermis publication and the combined teachings of Ermis and Nakano. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that the prior art predates the patent’s priority date.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
MIM Software has filed an IPR petition challenging Progenics' patent on AI‑driven medical risk mapping, asserting lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also cites Fintiv factors to support institution.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1 and 17 of WSOU’s U.S. 9,450,884 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests institution of the review.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
NVIDIA has filed a petition for inter partes review of Neural AI’s U.S. Patent 8,648,867, seeking to invalidate claims 1‑19 on obviousness grounds. The petition relies on NVIDIA’s own earlier patents (Nickolls and Kirk) together with the GPU Gems book to show that the claimed accelerator controller and pointer‑swapping were known.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Credo’s ’898 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues the patent was issued without substantive examination and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. v.Vervain, LLC
Kingston Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging all 12 claims of Vervain’s ‘300 NAND‑flash patent, arguing obviousness over the Gavens system and related prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Smart RF’s 8,078,561 patent covering digital predistortion, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art publications.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to review OS‑New Horizon’s U.S. Pat. 8,401,875 covering multi‑biometric authentication in handheld devices, asserting that a combination of prior‑art references renders the asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.
Xencor has filed an IPR petition challenging all seven claims of Merus’s ’859 bispecific antibody patent, asserting anticipation by Desjarlais and Moore and obviousness over Lazar and Kannan. The petitioner seeks institution and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.
REC Solar Holdings AS et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
REC Solar seeks to cancel claims 10‑15 of Maxeon’s 315 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art back‑contact solar cell teachings. The petition cites multiple references and asserts discretionary denial does not apply.
REC Solar Holdings AS et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
REC Solar seeks cancellation of claims 16 and 19 of Maxeon's 2022 solar‑cell patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering back‑contact cell design and impurity gettering.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of six claims of the ’626 LED patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over five prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations’ ’139 patent, asserting obviousness over Srinivasan and Taylor. The petitioner argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) or 314(a).
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America petitions the PTAB to invalidate Valtrus’s ’738 patent covering SIP fault‑tolerance methods, asserting obviousness over the Forissier patent. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a) is improper.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 9,045,101, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over existing driver‑authentication and vehicle‑monitoring technologies. The petition cites multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
AT&T and Nokia petition the PTAB to invalidate 16 claims of a DSL adaptive FEC patent, arguing obviousness over Cooper, Klayman and Li references and urging institution despite discretionary challenges.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 14 claims of ImberaTek’s ’816 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art packaging references. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition to cancel all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 9,045,101, asserting that the invention is anticipated or obvious over earlier driver‑authentication systems such as Murphy, Schanz, Petrik and Benco.
RingConn LLC v.Ouraring Inc. et al.
RingConn has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 1‑18 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, arguing they are obvious over Schröder, Niwa, Mestas and Yuen.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑23 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent 11,010,336, arguing obviousness over prior‑art database‑provisioning UIs and hyperconverged infrastructure. The petition also argues that the Board lacks discretionary grounds to deny institution.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple files an IPR seeking to invalidate ImberaTek's 9,107,324 patent on circuit modules, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑10 of Ningde Amperex’s ’927 lithium‑ion battery separator patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Nishikawa, Chen and Zhang. The petition seeks institution and a finding that all claims are unpatentable.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Headwater Partners' 9,413,502 patent covering backhaul routing, asserting that earlier patents Ishii and Sfar make the claims obvious. They also argue the Board should not deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition against Barco’s 2024 video‑conferencing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier web‑conferencing systems such as Beel, Dinka, Van de Laar, and Kaplan. The petition argues the examiner missed material prior art and erred in patentability analysis.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight claims of Sinotechnix's LED illumination lens patent, arguing that prior‑art lenses (Tawa, Shikama, Scharf) render the claims obvious or anticipated. The petition also argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Amazon.com et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of NL Giken’s 8,677,391 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art systems (Ray, Nolan, Cansler) under §103 and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
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.