US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 187 of 291 · 8,722 total
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
Apple Inc. has filed an IPR challenging NL Giken's content streaming patent, asserting that core bookmarking and next-content navigation features are obvious over prior art references Cordray and Wiser.
Cargill, Incorporated v.Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge brought by Cargill against Bunge Loders Croklaan regarding vegetable fat composition claims. The Board found that the petitioner failed to overcome obviousness grounds, specifically rejecting arguments based on hindsight bias when converting prior art data.
Cargill, Incorporated v.Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLC
Cargill's request for rehearing was denied after the PTAB previously denied institution of IPR against Bunge Loders Croklaan USA regarding a vegetable fat composition patent. The Board found that Cargill’s arguments relied on hindsight bias, specifically in selecting prior art examples to meet claimed triglyceride ranges.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
Digital Global Systems successfully secured the institution of IPR against DeepSig's patent (11,018,704) over radio signal distortion correction claims, setting up a major technical dispute in cellular communications.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
Adobe Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Jonathan E. Jaffe regarding image integrity patents (6757828). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over prior art, specifically Glass et al., leading to trial preparation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB institution decision allows Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. to challenge 30 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,588,110 B2 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Petitioner's view of the level of ordinary skill in the art and conducted claim construction for key 'means for' limitations. This sets the stage for a full IPR review against Headwater Research LLC.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED et al. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
Qualcomm successfully secured institution for its IPR against Cobblestone Wireless, despite the petition being substantively identical to a previously instituted Samsung proceeding. This decision emphasizes that lack of 'road-mapping' alone is insufficient grounds for discretionary denial when the claims are highly relevant.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Optronic Sciences, LLC's patent 8158477. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over multiple prior art references.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
The Board found several claims of Patent No. 11,018,704 B1 unpatentable over prior art (Jüschke and Holt), primarily based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The decision involved extensive claim construction, notably finding that 'associated with' includes models implemented in a base station and that 'representation of' allows for modeled signals.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims of the '828 Patent. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction, specifically requiring monitoring of the physical coupling between the sensor and memory. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that any combination of prior art references renders the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED et al. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
The PTAB found several claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) using various prior art combinations in the field of multi-carrier communication systems. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'information' as 'data,' which was critical to its findings against the Patent Owner.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC.
Micron (as petitioner) seeks IPR of U.S. Patent 10,950,300 covering flash memory systems with MLC/SLC cells, arguing the claims are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja. The petition emphasizes early filing and favorable Fintiv factors to secure institution.
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia reached a settlement that resolved all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 10,869,812. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the instituted IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC.
Phison Electronics Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Vervain’s ‘546 NAND flash memory patent. The petition alleges lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, insufficient written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over extensive prior art.
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical Ltd. petitions to invalidate Serendia's microneedling patent (10869812) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references, including Mehta and Na’848. The petition challenges all 20 claims, arguing that the combination of existing technology renders the claimed invention non-novel or obvious.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC.
The PTAB denied the petition challenging a NAND Flash Memory System patent based on grounds including 101, 112, and 103. The Board found that the claims were directed toward a technological improvement in memory storage and adequately supported by the specification.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Feit Electric seeks Director Review to vacate the institution of two consolidated IPRs covering its LED lighting patent, citing failure to disclose a Chinese parent company and contradictory claim‑construction arguments by the petitioners.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Feit Electric requests Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s denial of its motion to terminate an IPR, arguing that petitioners presented inconsistent claim constructions across forums.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Feit Electric’s request to extend the Director Review deadline in two IPRs was denied as untimely, despite arguments about a recent policy change and foreign ownership concerns.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Anonymous Media Research Holdings settled their IPR before institution, dismissing the petition and the patent with prejudice.
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
Garmin and Saris have filed a joint request to keep their settlement confidential and to terminate the IPR over patent 10,434,394.
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
Garmin and Saris Equipment jointly moved to end the IPR over patent 10,434,394 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, terminating the proceeding and sealing the settlement agreement.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies opposes the patent owner's request for director review, arguing the deposition dispute is moot and that the cited references are printed publications supporting the institution of inter partes review.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies and Cambridge Enterprise Limited jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01235 after reaching a settlement agreement. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution, arguing the Board erred on the printed‑publication requirement and relied on inadmissible hearsay. The Patent Owner contends the petitioner failed to provide evidence that cited references qualify as printed publications and refused to make a key expert available for deposition.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
The Patent Owner’s request for Director Review of the Board’s denial of its motion to terminate the IPR was rejected as improper under the CFR. The Board cited statutory limits on Director Review authority.
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
Garmin and Saris Equipment have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,434,394 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
The PTAB denied Pascal Technologies' request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01235, leaving the institution order in place.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request in IPR2024-01281. Cisco must respond within five business days, limited to 15 pages and without new evidence.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Lionra Technologies’ request for review of the Board’s decision that all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 7,738,471 are unpatentable. Cisco argues the Board correctly applied Axonics precedent and that the prior art teaches the disputed limitation.
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.