US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 186 of 286 · 8,574 total
CSPC Pharmaceutical Group Limited et al. v.Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. et al.
CSPC Pharmaceutical Group has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of Ipsen’s U.S. Patent 11,344,552 covering a liposomal irinotecan regimen for metastatic pancreatic cancer, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
Sandisk and Western Digital seek to invalidate Polaris PowerLED's ’085 flash‑memory patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art ECC techniques. They request institution and argue discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of KPN’s ’669 patent, asserting obviousness over Widegren, Widegren‑793, ETSI TS 183 063 and Astrom, and urging the Board not to deny institution.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, citing anticipation by Lung and obviousness over Park, Fukuzumi, and Mokhlesi. The petitioner argues discretionary denial does not apply and seeks cancellation of claims 8, 13, and 21.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing they are obvious over Blaser, Calder, and Schmidt-449. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate Micron’s 3D NAND patent (U.S. 8,803,214) on anticipation and obviousness grounds, citing Kang, Fukuzumi and Ahn references. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and seeks institution of review.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 15 claims of H2 Intellect’s 296 patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art advertising systems (Elliott, Jacob) and a location‑search patent (Musk). The petition includes detailed claim constructions and asserts that discretionary denial is not warranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging 14 claims of Four Batons Wireless’s patent on real‑time wireless interface selection, asserting obviousness over Guo and Neave references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Four Batons Wireless’s ’436 patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art network‑selection references. The petition argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.
Nokia petitions the PTAB to invalidate 11 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s DSL crosstalk patent, arguing obviousness over Rezvani and Cendrillon I, with an additional reliance on the G.992.3 standard for claim 11.
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Office Kick's U.S. Patent 11,910,926 covering a vertically adjustable desktop workspace, arguing that all asserted claims are obvious over six prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 36 claims of Headwater Research's ’510 patent covering automated credential porting for mobile devices, asserting obviousness over Salmela and Rishy-Maharaj publications.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Barco’s video‑conferencing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and examiner error.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18 of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Elnozahy and Draves references and lack written‑description support. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications petitions the PTAB to invalidate Iarnach Technologies’ EPON configuration patent, asserting that all 32 claims are obvious over a body of prior art. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial would be improper under §§314 and 325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of Headwater Research’s ’510 patent on the basis that a combination of prior‑art references makes the claims obvious under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that the proceeding should be instituted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research’s patent on security techniques for device‑assisted services, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed a petition for inter partes review of XtreamEdge’s U.S. Patent No. 10,944,634, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art bandwidth‑management patents. The petition challenges all 20 claims and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 8,593,580 covering a projection-type display apparatus. The petition relies on eight obviousness grounds combining prior art such as Ishino, Erchak, Li ’415, Uchiyama, and Bakker, and argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8, 10, and 12 of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 9,547,226, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Kurosaki, Miyamae, and Kitano references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, Ltd.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Maxell’s 9,322,530 patent covering a projection‑type light source device. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of the ’596 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references that teach reservation registers and hardware queues. The petition argues the references were never considered during prosecution and seeks institution of the review.
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. has filed a petition to cancel Office Kick’s ’843 patent covering a vertically adjustable desktop workspace, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
WebGroup Czech Republic petitions the PTAB to invalidate DISH's adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references. The Board is asked to institute the IPR.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Webgroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of DISH Technologies' multi‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
Padagis seeks inter partes review of Neurelis’s 11,793,786 patent covering intranasal benzodiazepine solutions, arguing that all 27 claims are obvious over prior art and that the patent owner is estopped from contesting issues already decided in a prior IPR.
Full-Metal-Power B.V. v.InFocus Downhole Solutions USA LLC
Full-Metal-Power B.V. filed a corrected exhibit set for its IPR challenge to InFocus Downhole Solutions' U.S. Patent 10,676,992, addressing labeling errors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 17 claims of Cerence’s ’291 speech‑synthesis patent, asserting obviousness over Walker, Matsumoto, Malsheen and Bellegarda references. The petition argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition against Optimum Imaging’s ’805 patent, arguing that all challenged claims are obvious over prior art 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.