US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 184 of 286 · 8,574 total
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over six prior‑art references and asking the PTAB to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of X1 Discovery’s U.S. Patent No. 10,552,490 covering search indexing. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Lotus Notes, Raskin, Wu, Entourage, True, and Baeza‑Yates references and urges the Board not to deny institution.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Stratasys’s 3‑D printer force‑detection patent. The challenger alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references, including Warren, Dunn, Calderon and an open‑source RepRap forum thread.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging KPN’s U.S. Patent 9,462,544, asserting that claim 1 is obvious over multiple LTE‑related prior art references. The petition seeks institution and argues the Board should not deny it under discretionary standards.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 27 claims of X1 Discovery’s 9,633,139 patent covering incremental multi‑string search. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Lotus Notes, Raskin, Wu and over Entourage, True, and Baeza‑Yates references.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate KPN’s RE48,089 patent covering automatic wireless coverage assessment. The petition relies on obviousness over Olofsson/Kuruvilla and Lee/Shrum and argues against discretionary denial.
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.
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC
Twitch Interactive has filed a petition to invalidate claim 1 of Razdog’s cloud‑computing patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeking institution of an IPR trial.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8‑17 of U.S. Patent 8,769,316, asserting obviousness over Felter, Finkelstein, and Therien references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and urges the Board to institute the review.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all ten claims of X1 Discovery’s 2008 ‘Methods and Systems for Search Indexing’ patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references such as Lotus Notes, Entourage, and academic works.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 15‑29 of Cleveland Medical Devices’ ’333 patent covering networked CPAP therapy. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references Toge, Kumar, Norman and Burton. No secondary considerations are offered and the Board is asked to institute the review.
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
ASUSTek seeks an IPR to invalidate VideoLabs' 8,291,236 patent covering conditional access and DRM bridging, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as the Russ, Robert, and Eskicioglu patents.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over Costa and, when combined with Oh, lack patentability. The petition argues no discretionary denial grounds and seeks institution.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Costa reference and requesting the Board to institute the review.
Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Formycon AG has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 52 claims of Regeneron's anti‑VEGF ophthalmic formulation patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art formulations and presentations. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Optronic Sciences' OLED pixel‑driving patent. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Kim406, Kim730, and Senda—to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103.
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
ASUSTek has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VideoLabs' U.S. Patent 8,291,236, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the Russ patent. The petition also argues there is no discretionary denial basis.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of a 5G CQI‑table patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. They contend the claims are obvious over prior‑art standards documents and a PCT publication. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Intel, Lenovo and Motorola have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑5 of Collision Communications’ ’703 patent covering iterative multi‑user detection. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness and urges the Board to institute the review.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Intel, Lenovo, and Motorola have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Collision Communications’ ’651 patent covering multi‑user detection. They rely on obviousness over Fuller‑Reznik and Frank‑Zha combinations and argue that discretionary denial factors favor institution.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition targeting YMTC’s 3D NAND ‘276 patent, asserting that all 18 claims are obvious over Kim, Fang, Han, and Chen. The petition argues no discretionary denial applies and seeks institution.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Intel, Lenovo and Motorola seek to invalidate Collision Communications' 9,814,071 patent on multi‑user detection, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art such as Jin, Baum, Tsai and Vrzic. The petition emphasizes new arguments and opposes discretionary denial, requesting institution of the IPR.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Lenovo and Motorola filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications’ ’505 patent covering multi‑user detection. The petition asserts obviousness over Hottinen/Lilleberg and Zimmerman/Lilleberg and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Lenovo and Motorola Mobility have filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications' 8,089,946 patent covering multi‑user detection modems. They assert three obviousness grounds based on Walton, Learned, and Quigley prior art. The petition seeks institution and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate eight claims of Sun Pharma’s photodynamic‑therapy device patent, arguing obviousness over Lundahl, Larsen, Hente and Perutz. The petition argues the prior art was not previously considered and that the Board should not deny the petition under §325(d) or Fintiv.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 14 claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent on obviousness grounds, citing prior‑art references and earlier PTAB findings.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 15 claims of Vervain’s ’385 patent on the basis that the hybrid SLC‑MLC flash architecture and its wear‑leveling features are obvious over prior art such as Gavens, Moshayedi and Sutardja.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of Zaxcom’s ’443 patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of six prior‑art references and urging the PTAB to institute the review.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed a petition to invalidate Mullen Industries' 9,635,540 patent covering mobile‑to‑mobile location sharing. The petition relies on a suite of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and asserts no basis for discretionary denial.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm and MediaTek have filed an IPR petition challenging Daedalus Prime's multicore cache coherence patent, asserting that all claims are obvious over prior art such as Agarwal, Sinharoy, Blumrich, and Sistla.
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.