US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 187 of 286 · 8,574 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’339 patent covering in‑camera aberration correction, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
LifeVac, LLC v.DCStar Inc.
LifeVac has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate DCStar’s 11,478,575 patent covering an anti‑choking suction device. The petition relies on Chinese reference Zhongnan and Korean reference Yuchang to argue obviousness of all 17 claims and urges the Board not to deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Cerence’s ’671 patent, arguing they are obvious over existing text‑to‑speech technologies. The petition also argues that discretionary factors favor instituting the review.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics seeks IPR of Natera’s ’596 patent covering liquid‑biopsy methods, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple pre‑2015 publications and that the examiner erred. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial, urging the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
Celltrion, Inc. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Celltrion seeks IPR institution to invalidate all 50 claims of Regeneron’s US 11,084,865, arguing anticipation by US432 and lack of written description for glycosylation and stability limits.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. petitions the PTAB to cancel HydraFacial's 11,446,477 skin‑treatment patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of HydraFacial’s ’607 skin‑treatment patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art microdermabrasion references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review challenging Vasu Holdings' patent covering Wi‑Fi/cellular handover. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asks the PTAB to institute the review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Vasu Holdings’ 8,886,181 patent covering seamless Wi‑Fi‑to‑cellular handover. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial does not apply.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Vasu Holdings’ ’281 patent covering wireless handover. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of HydraFacial's microdermabrasion console patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner never considered the cited combinations and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Maxell’s ’729 electric‑camera patent, arguing that all four claims are obvious over prior‑art cameras. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cites favorable discretionary‑denial factors.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging Stratasys’s 3‑D‑printing patent (US 10,569,466), asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and reject discretionary denial arguments.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of Kyocera Senco’s 2023 gas‑spring nailer patent, asserting obviousness over several older patents and arguing that the “lifter” term is means‑plus‑function.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ optical isolator array patent, arguing anticipation by a Chinese patent and obviousness over that patent combined with a U.S. reference. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ 10,313,024 optical‑module patent, asserting anticipation by two prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute review despite discretionary denial arguments.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑7, 12 and 14‑17 of Ningde Amperex’s ’131 lithium‑ion battery patent, asserting obviousness over multiple foreign and U.S. references.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 of Applied Optoelectronics’ 10,379,301 patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated by prior‑art references Shen and Soldano. The petition stresses that these references were not used during prosecution and requests the Board to institute review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 34 claims of Headwater’s ’868 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Jarvinen and Fox publications. The petition seeks institution of review and argues against discretionary denial.
Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s DSL‑crosstalk patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over three prior‑art references that were never considered during prosecution.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed a petition to invalidate MES’s ’225 mercury‑removal patent. The petition alleges lack of written‑description support, obviousness over prior art, and anticipation, and urges the PTAB not to deny institution.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MES’s 10,589,225 patent covering mercury‑removal methods in coal‑fired power plants. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and anticipation by the Downs‑Boiler reference, and requests that the Board not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Valtrus’s ’409 patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over Khare and Kirkman. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 25 claims of Valtrus Innovations' 7,313,575 patent, arguing that the Chen IBM Redbooks publication makes those claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America seeks an IPR to invalidate Valtrus’s 6,871,264 patent covering a multi‑processor cache allocation system, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier patents. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Kyocera's 2022 gas‑spring fastener driving tool patent, asserting obviousness over several older nail‑gun patents and raising means‑plus‑function issues.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Savant Technologies (GE Lighting) petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1 and 11‑14 of Feit Electric’s white‑light LED patent, arguing they are obvious over several LED‑related publications. The petition seeks institution of inter‑partes review.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of YMTC’s 3D NAND patent, arguing obviousness over Nishikawa, Lu, and Nishikawa2 references and asserting no discretionary denial factors.
Embody, Inc. et al. v.LifeNet Health
Embody and Zimmer Biomet have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑8 of LifeNet Health’s 11,318,227 patent covering electrospun collagen scaffolds. They argue obviousness and anticipation based on Huang2, Kuo, and Lee, and request institution of the review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight claims of NL Giken’s ’236 TV safety‑monitoring patent, alleging obviousness over several pre‑AIA references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted under the Fintiv framework.
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.