US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 183 of 286 · 8,574 total
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Sinotechnix’s 7,901,113 LED lens patent, asserting that prior art references Odawara, Sommers, and West anticipate or render the claims obvious.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 6 of Sinotechnix’s 9,412,913 LED‑package patent, asserting obviousness and anticipation based on five prior‑art references.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate dozens of claims of AlmondNet’s ’904 patent covering URL‑redirect based user profiling for targeted ads.
Intel Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Proxense’s ’672 patent covering wireless time‑slot allocation, arguing the claims are obvious over public standards and prior‑art publications.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v.AbTis Co., Ltd.
Ajinomoto has filed an IPR petition challenging AbTis’s U.S. Patent 11,896,675 covering site‑specific antibody‑drug conjugates. The petitioner alleges lack of written description, improper priority, and that all 13 claims are anticipated or obvious over several pre‑grant publications and conference disclosures. The petition seeks cancellation of every claim.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging four claims of Sinotechnix’s ’952 patent covering LCD backlight panels. The challenger asserts obviousness over the Hong and Lee publications, and over its own admitted prior art, and seeks institution of the review.
Intel Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Intel has filed a petition to invalidate Proxense’s U.S. Patent 8,219,129 covering high‑rate WPAN communications, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 21 claims of Mobile Data Technologies’ ’578 patent covering mobile content‑sharing functionality. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliated utilities have filed a petition for inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent 10,343,114, which claims mercury‑removal methods for coal‑fired power plants. The petition asserts obviousness over several prior‑art references and argues the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d). The case is pending Board decision.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies' 9,619,578 patent covering mobile content sharing. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art combinations and seeks institution of the review.
Intel Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Intel has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s 9,265,043 patent covering wireless time‑slot allocation. The petition asserts obviousness over combinations of Gilb, IEEE 802.15.3, Ward, and Brawn, and argues discretionary denial is improper.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sinotechnix’s ’873 patent covering side‑illumination LED lenses, asserting that multiple prior‑art references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies' patent covering mobile device content sharing, asserting obviousness over prior Symbian forum and gaming system references.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,805,687, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art streaming technologies. The petition also argues against discretionary denial, referencing Fintiv and the lack of a prior petition by the same party.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Mobile Data Technologies’ ’348 patent, arguing they are obvious over early web‑community and proxy‑server references. The petition also challenges the patent owner’s claim constructions and argues against discretionary denial.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sterling Computers Corporation
Microsoft petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Sterling's 911 patent covering email compliance features, arguing the claims are obvious over Rohall, Schiavone, and Gomes. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ 8,793,336 patent covering web‑based content sharing on mobile devices, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art Yahoo! club technology and related references.
Microsoft Corporation v.ParTec AG
Microsoft seeks to invalidate ParTec’s 11,537,442 patent covering dynamic task allocation in heterogeneous clusters, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lippert, Budenske, and Kambatla. The petition also challenges a potential Fintiv denial.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent (U.S. 10,805,687) on obviousness grounds, citing a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition argues no prior petition exists and includes a Fintiv stipulation to limit further challenges.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has petitioned an IPR against Stratasys' 3‑D‑printing patent covering purge‑tower printing, asserting obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑10 of Inpria’s ’903 patent, asserting that the claimed high‑purity organotin compositions are fully disclosed in earlier literature. The petition challenges the patent on anticipation and obviousness grounds and argues that Inpria’s examiner‑era declarations were misleading.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of Mobile Data Technologies' 8,793,336 patent, asserting obviousness over two prior‑art combinations and arguing against discretionary denial.
Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 14 of ParkerVision’s ‘177 patent, asserting obviousness over Tayloe, a TI multiplexer datasheet, Razavi, and Uzunoglu references. The petition argues that the prior art predates the patent’s critical date and that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and other carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of a 5G preemption patent owned by Pegasus Wireless. The petition relies on obviousness over the Kuchibhotla and Chen publications and asks the PTAB to institute the review.
Lam Research Corp. v.Inpria Corporation
Lam Research has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Inpria's EUV lithography patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness issues. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s ‘697 patent covering low‑latency sports video and data streaming. The petition alleges obviousness over five prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging VideoLabs' U.S. Patent 8,291,236 covering conditional‑access and DRM bridging. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art patents and seeks institution of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ 9,032,039 patent covering mobile content sharing. The petition argues the claims are obvious over two prior‑art combinations and urges the Board to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Mobile Data Technologies’ ’801 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is improper.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ U.S. Patent 8,825,801, asserting that the claims are obvious over two prior‑art combinations (Randall‑Forsyth and Pelkey‑Eck) and urging the Board to institute the review.
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.