US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 186 of 188 · 5,620 total
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
The PTAB found numerous claims of U.S. Patent No. 11329973 unpatentable based on obviousness (103). The Board determined that the prior art, particularly Oborne, discloses key limitations related to token generation and issuing agency verification in digital credential systems. Claims 1, 3–8, and 10–16 were found invalid, while claims 2, 9, and 17 survived.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
The PTAB Board upheld the validity of Cortex MCP's claims (1-17) related to electronic credentials and tokenization. The Board rejected arguments that the claimed features were obvious over prior art references like Oborne, Neafsey, and Stafford.
JACS Solutions, Inc. v.Global Tel*Link Corporation d/b/a ViaPath Technologies
JACS Solutions and Global Tel*Link jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00484 after reaching a settlement. The Board authorized the termination, ending the review of patent 9,030,292.
JACS Solutions, Inc. v.Global Tel*Link Corporation d/b/a ViaPath Technologies
JACS Solutions and Global Tel*Link settled their IPR dispute before the Board could institute a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement confidential.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa submits an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny Cortex MCP’s Director Review request, asserting that the request raises new, unraised arguments about the timing of verification in the Oborne prior art. Visa maintains that the Board’s obviousness finding is well‑supported and procedurally sound.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Cortex MCP seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that cancelled 29 claims of its token‑payment patent. The owner contends the Board invented a new obviousness theory not raised in Visa’s petitions, violating procedural rules.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla, Inc. has filed a Petition challenging 17 claims of iQar Inc.'s patent (US 10,829,002) in the PTAB. The challenge asserts that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Kudo-325 and Kudo-066.
JACS Solutions, Inc. v.Global Tel*Link Corporation d/b/a ViaPath Technologies
JACS Solutions challenges Global Tel*Link's '9030292 Patent, asserting that 29 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features of secure facility monitoring systems are predictable combinations of existing prior art in telecommunications and security technology.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against iQar Inc.'s patent 10,829,002, challenging claims related to vehicle destination prediction and power management.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa, Inc.'s IPR petition against Cortex MCP, Inc.'s patent was instituted by the PTAB, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The Board adopted key claim constructions, including defining 'OVER file' to encompass tokens and NFC interactions for 'scan,' confirming sufficient basis for unpatentability arguments.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa's claims against Cortex MCP were upheld by the PTAB Director in a review of the Final Written Decision. The Board confirmed that Oborne discloses the token verification limitation central to Visa's patent.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable over combinations of Kudo-325 and Kudo-066. The petitioner successfully argued that the prior art combination teaches or suggests the necessary elements for destination prediction and power management in vehicles. This final decision affirms the obviousness rejection against iQar Inc.'s patent.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
The Board found that the majority of claims (24 out of 33) were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The key finding was that Oborne teaches core tokenization elements, while other combinations failed to provide sufficient motivation for the claimed improvements.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s labs and Eye Therapies have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR docket. The request cites statutory authority and seeks limited disclosure.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group settled their dispute over Patent 8,145,249, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). They contend the agreement contains highly sensitive business information that could be harmed if disclosed.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Eye Therapies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,833,245 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317, citing policy and precedent favoring termination after settlement.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Eye Therapies entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of two inter partes review proceedings covering patents 11,833,245 and 11,596,600. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
LUMI LEGEND CORPORATION v.Manehu Product Alliance, LLC
Lumi Legend has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 33‑36 of U.S. Patent 11,781,703, alleging lack of written description, indefiniteness, anticipation, and obviousness. The petition relies on prior art such as Clary, Juan, Pankros, Tsuji, and Xu. It also argues the patent is eligible for PGR and urges the Board not to deny institution.
LUMI LEGEND CORPORATION v.Manehu Product Alliance, LLC
LUMI LEGEND CORPORATION successfully petitioned for institution of its PGR against Manehu Product Alliance regarding television mounting systems. The Board found that the petitioner met the likelihood standard by asserting claims 33-36 are likely unpatentable over a combination of Clary and Tsuji, despite patent owner arguments about mechanical interference.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories successfully secured institution status for an IPR against Eye Therapies, LLC regarding ophthalmic formulations. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on the combination of prior art references.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to trial on all challenged claims of STA Group's patent (8145249). The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) against multiple prior art references. This decision moves the dispute toward full trial, significantly advancing Motorola's position.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al. v.Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.
Chevron and Scout filed a joint motion to stay Pilot's infringement suit while the PTAB reviews the disputed patent in IPR2024-00385. The district court granted the stay, administratively closing the case pending the PTAB's final written decision.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al. v.Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.
Scout Energy Management and Chevron settled with Pilot Intellectual Property, resulting in a joint motion that terminated the IPR on patent 8,505,332. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al. v.Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.
Scout Energy Management and Chevron settled with Pilot Intellectual Property over a CO₂‑capture oil‑recovery patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google successfully oppose Headwater Research’s untimely Director Review request, leaving the PTAB’s finding that the ’733 patent’s claims are unpatentable intact.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch defends its IPv6 transition patent against Juniper’s IPR challenge, arguing the prior art does not disclose separate IPv4/IPv6 domains and that key references are not prior art.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch’s preliminary response opposes Juniper’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,451,844, arguing that the cited prior art does not disclose separate IPv4/IPv6 domains and that Li‑2 is not prior art. The owner seeks denial of institution.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper’s IPR challenge to Monarch’s IPv4/IPv6 inter‑domain routing patent is countered with a sur‑reply asserting that the cited prior art is either not publicly available or teaches different solutions, and that new arguments are procedurally improper.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research LLC seeks Director review of an IPR decision that found all claims of its 2013 MMS messaging patent unpatentable. The patent owner contends the Board improperly relied on expert testimony because the cited prior art (TS-23.140) does not disclose the required agent communication bus. The request asks the Director to vacate the decision and terminate the IPR.
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.