US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 181 of 286 · 8,574 total
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard seeks an IPR of Medline’s ’347 patent covering urinary catheter trays, challenging claims 1‑8, 10‑11, 13‑20 as obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary factors do not favor denial and requests institution.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Medline’s 11,661,220 catheter‑kit patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard seeks PTAB institution of an IPR to cancel Medline’s 11,661,219 catheter‑kit patent, arguing that every claim is obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of ImberaTek’s ’723 patent, asserting that prior‑art references Tuominen967Pub, Capote, and Asahi make the claims obvious under §103. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references and that Fintiv factors favor institution.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Kangxi Communications Technologies has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Skyworks' U.S. Patent 8,717,101 covering biasing circuits for RF power amplifiers. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Ishimaru publication and over Ishimaru combined with Harrison’s current‑mirror teaching, and opposes discretionary denial.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2 and 4‑20 of U.S. Patent 7,489,914 on the basis of obviousness over prior art references Yeh, Dalmia, and Hashemi. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and requests institution of the trial.
Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging ParkerVision’s 9,118,528 patent covering down‑conversion receiver technology, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
MOTORTECH GmbH et al. v.--
Motortech has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of U.S. Patent 7,401,603 covering capacitive discharge ignition systems. The petition argues obviousness over a 1992 research disclosure combined with prior patents Grather and Lepley‑I, and disputes any discretionary denial.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, arguing obviousness over Jensen, Matsumura and Kroll. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM has filed an IPR petition challenging Croga’s 11,178,104 patent covering sandboxed network isolation, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed an IPR petition challenging 26 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable heart‑monitor patent, asserting obviousness over Jensen, Kroll and other prior art. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata has filed an IPR petition challenging 19 claims of Georgia Tech’s 7,489,914 patent covering multi‑band RF transceivers. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over a combination of four prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple filed an IPR seeking to invalidate ImberaTek’s 7609527 patent covering electronic modules, asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Kangxi Communications petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Skyworks' 9,917,563 patent, asserting that four claims are obvious over Ishimaru, Ichitsubo, and Harrison. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and argues discretionary denial is improper.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.RightQuestion, LLC
AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RightQuestion's 2021 patent on automatic number identification, asserting that all 28 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Har and Miller.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM petitions the PTAB to invalidate Croga’s ’780 patent covering virtual‑machine firewalls, arguing the claims are obvious over Delco, Adams, and Dadhia. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 25 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all ten claims of Vermeer’s ’891 compact tool carrier patent, relying on Korean patent KR996 and secondary references Bares and SAE.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed a petition for inter partes review of Welch Allyn’s U.S. Patent 10,159,422 covering a wearable ECG sensor. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references—Matsumura, Jensen, and Ozguz—and asks the PTAB to cancel them.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
Alliance Laundry Systems has filed an IPR petition challenging Claims 7 and 11 of PayRange’s ’772 patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art patents and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Full-Metal-Power B.V. v.InFocus Downhole Solutions USA LLC
Full-Metal-Power B.V. has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Infocus Downhole Solutions' 2020 patent on downhole progressive cavity tools, asserting obviousness over multiple foreign and U.S. references.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.RightQuestion, LLC
AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RightQuestion's 2023 patent on automatic number identification. They assert that the claims are obvious over prior art references Har, Miller and French, and argue that the Board should institute the review under favorable Fintiv factors.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Stratasys’s networked 3‑D‑printing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and arguing against discretionary denial under the Fintiv precedent.
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC
Twitch Interactive has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of RazDog’s cloud‑based content‑aggregation patent, arguing obviousness over Darnell, Kim, and Dasgupta references. The petition stresses favorable discretionary factors for institution.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 11 claims of VirtaMove’s 7,519,814 patent covering container virtualization. The petition argues obviousness over prior‑art systems such as Osman, Tucker, Bandhole and Gélinas and asserts no discretionary denial grounds.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all claims of U.S. Patent 10,524,002, arguing they are obvious or anticipated by earlier web‑broadcast technologies. The petition cites Avellan, Ma, Fain, and Wannamaker as prior art and requests that the Board institute the review.
Carvana, LLC v.International Business Machines Corporation
Carvana petitions the PTAB to invalidate IBM’s ’719 patent covering a dual‑MVC web architecture, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier MVC and JavaScript publications.
X Corp. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
X Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sterling Computers’ 7,716,217 patent covering email relevance scoring, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over prior art such as Dumais, Kircher, Krug, and Marston. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑36 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent 11,860,818, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art database UI disclosures. The petition argues that the examiner never considered the cited references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Webgroup CZ and NKL have filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of DISH's adaptive streaming patent, asserting obviousness over the Leaning and Gamble references. The petition argues strong Graham factors and no discretionary denial grounds.
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.