US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 182 of 286 · 8,574 total
AT&T SERVICES INC. et al. v.RightQuestion, LLC
AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 23 claims of RightQuestion’s device‑fingerprinting patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Miller reference.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Webgroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates have filed a petition for inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive streaming patent, asserting obviousness over the Leaning and Gamble references under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology petitions to invalidate 17 claims of Stratasys' 3D‑printer patent, arguing that a combination of prior‑art references makes the claims obvious. The petition also challenges a discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).
LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of U.S. Patent 9,578,384, arguing they are obvious over a combination of the Kim smart‑TV disclosure and publicly available Netflix UI videos, plus the Hunt and Hunleth patents. Two grounds are asserted under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). The petition also argues discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of U.S. Patent 10,123,074, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Avellan and a suite of secondary references.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed a petition to invalidate claims 6, 7, 10, and 20 of YMTC’s 3D NAND joint‑opening patent, asserting obviousness over Costa combined with Liu, Lee, and Toyama. The petitioner also argues there are no discretionary reasons to deny institution.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 26 claims of the ’441 patent, alleging anticipation or obviousness over a wide range of prior‑art streaming patents. The petition argues that the Board should not deny the request and requests institution of the review.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Zaxcom’s ‘444 patent, seeking cancellation of 23 claims on obviousness grounds using multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs and disputes any discretionary denial.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of EyesMatch’s ’110 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Intellectual Ventures’ ’138 patent covering UMTS radio‑bearer data selection, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that no discretionary denial grounds exist.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Amazon seeks IPR cancellation of VirtaMove’s 7,784,058 patent, asserting that shared‑library implementations disclosed in early‑2000s papers render all challenged claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2 and 6‑11 of the ’805 patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier autonomous‑vehicle publications. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests the Board to institute the review.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of EyesMatch’s ’109 patent, arguing they are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references and that discretionary denial doctrines do not apply.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed a petition for inter partes review of SoundClear’s 9,070,374 patent covering a simplex communication apparatus with visual feedback. The petition argues that all claims are obvious over IBM, Kale, and Li prior art and seeks institution of the IPR.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation's 5G frequency‑hopping patent, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny the filing under discretionary statutes.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Pat. 7,181,743. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Welch whitepaper and related publications, and disputes any discretionary denial.
Roche Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Trividia Health, Inc.
Roche Diabetes Care petitions the PTAB to invalidate Trividia Health’s 8,128,981 patent covering glucose test strip manufacturing, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art laser‑ablation references. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and opposes discretionary denial.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of U.S. Patent 6,894,639, arguing they are obvious over earlier image‑processing patents (Barnard, Knecht, Lawrence). The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and a consortium of carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate U.S. Patent 10,721,118, which covers dual‑connectivity methods for user equipment. The petition relies on the Futaki publication and 3GPP standards to argue anticipation and obviousness of all 15 claims.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and major telecom carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s ’644 patent on MTC coverage enhancement, arguing the claims are anticipated and obvious over Lee, You, and Zhuang prior art.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of U.S. Patent 10,596,517 covering mercury removal from flue gas, arguing obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references.
VideoAmp, Inc. v.The Nielsen Company (US), LLC
VideoAmp petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 23 claims of Nielsen’s ’250 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art systems (Pecjak, Mirisola, and Shankar). The petition includes expert testimony and argues against discretionary denial.
Analog Devices, Inc. et al. v.Number 14 B.V.
Analog Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 21 and 22 of U.S. Patent 7,973,596, arguing they are obvious over Pertijs and Tang prior art. The petition includes detailed claim constructions and argues against discretionary denial.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of a mercury‑removal patent, arguing obviousness and lack of priority support. The petition relies on prior art from early‑2000s conference papers and patents. Institution of the proceeding is pending.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of Inari Medical’s ’005 patent covering a catheter‑based aspiration system with a hemostasis valve, alleging obviousness over Garrison, Schaffer, Hartley and Eller references.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Blossom Holdco Limited et al.
Shenzhen Root Technology petitions to invalidate U.S. Patent 11,806,454 covering a wearable breast pump, arguing the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,343,114, which covers a mercury‑removal method for coal‑fired power plants. The petition argues the claims are obvious over earlier conference papers and patents, and that the patent lacks priority support for its bromine‑related limitations.
KLIPSTA PTY LTD v.Albanese, Lindsay
Klipsta PTY LTD petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,413,047, asserting that the hat‑holding system is fully anticipated or obvious over numerous international prior‑art references.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a digital‑camera patent, arguing they are obvious over existing multi‑sensor camera technologies and that no discretionary denial applies.
GOOGLE LLC v.EscapeX IP LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of EscapeX’s ’687 patent covering social‑media engagement monetization. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and meets the statutory threshold for institution.
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.