US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 189 of 286 · 8,574 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of SiOnyx’s 9,064,764 light‑trapping image sensor patent, arguing that each claim is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of IV’s ’670 LTE‑MTC patent, arguing they are obvious over Wallen and Berggren. The petition argues that the prior art was not considered during prosecution and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 12 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Patent 10,952,153 covering uplink power‑control techniques, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
Globus Medical has filed a petition for inter partes review of Spinelogik’s U.S. Patent 8,460,385 covering a spinal fusion device. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art implants (Moskowitz, Hess) and a combination with Steffee’s curved fasteners, and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑5, 7 and 9.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin has filed an IPR petition challenging Cardiacsense’s ’998 patent covering swimming‑watch technology. The petition alleges lack of written description for a compass and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cleveland Medical Devices' U.S. Patent 11,690,512 covering a wearable sleep diagnostic system. The petition argues that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Ciulla, Orbach, and others) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all ten claims of Vervain’s ‘240 NAND‑flash patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition cites Gavens, Moshayedi and Sutardja patents and argues that pending district‑court suits do not bar institution.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla seeks IPR institution to invalidate claims 11‑22 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’500 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering uplink power control. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑12 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’416 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Kim, Vayanos) and the applicant‑admitted background. The petition also contests any discretionary denial by the Board.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of Cleveland Medical Devices' ’921 patent covering a networked PAP system. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Toge, Burton, Kumar, and Kisner. It seeks institution of the review.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,985,943, which covers FPGA‑based programmable logic devices for data‑flow processing in servers. The petition asserts obviousness over six prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate all twelve claims of Vervain’s ‘300 NAND flash patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition seeks institution to streamline parallel district‑court litigation.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience petitions the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of the ‘030 spatial‑transcriptomics patent, arguing obviousness over Cantor and Armani and anticipation by Frisen, plus lack of written‑description support. The petition also argues that no discretionary denial grounds apply.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nike’s 9,510,636 footwear patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over several prior‑art knit‑shoe references.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Liberty Mutual and Comerica petition the PTAB to invalidate 63 claims of IV’s ‘Secure Virtual Community Network System’ patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Mehta and RFC‑1383. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
Green Revolution Cooling petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑16 of U.S. Patent 10,405,457, arguing obviousness over Best‑2008 combined with Osada and Best‑2012, and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘666 patent, asserting that claims 17, 19, and 20 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 11,549,138 covering spatially encoded biological assays, arguing obviousness over Cantor and Armani and anticipation by Frisen, and asserting lack of written description support.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Entropic’s ’275 patent covering a digital TV receiver, seeking cancellation of all 20 claims on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Tesla, Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Charge Fusion’s electric‑vehicle charging patent, arguing they are obvious over existing EV charging systems and GUIs.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Ouraring, Inc. et al.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Oura’s finger‑ring health‑monitor patent, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under the Fintiv provision.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo has filed an IPR petition challenging Ericsson’s U.S. Patent 10,708,618 covering reference‑picture signaling in video codecs. The petition argues that all 19 claims are obvious over earlier video‑coding disclosures (Mulroy, H.264/AVC, and Raveendran) and requests the Board to institute the review despite parallel litigation.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers petitions the PTAB to invalidate Nike’s 9,060,562 patent covering knitted shoe uppers, asserting that all 23 claims are anticipated or obvious over prior‑art such as Dua‑592 and Okamoto.
Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla has filed a petition for inter partes review of Charge Fusion’s U.S. Patent 11,631,987, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering EV charging systems and user interfaces.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast has filed a petition to cancel all 18 claims of Entropic’s ’438 cable‑network patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references that the examiner never considered.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of DH International’s ’333 patent covering a portable electronic device with an invariable activation command, asserting obviousness over McGregor, Palmer, and Tuttle references.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Sinclair Pharma has filed an IPR petition challenging HydraFacial's skin‑treatment patent (US 11,865,287). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and requests cancellation of 41 claims. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vermeer’s U.S. Patent 10,202,266 covering compact tool carriers. The challenger relies on Korean patent KR996 and U.S. patents Bares and Beltrami to argue obviousness under §§102/103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND word‑line contact patent. The petition asserts obviousness over Kim, Park, and Fang references and argues there are no discretionary grounds to deny institution.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast has filed an IPR petition seeking to cancel all 18 claims of Entropic’s ’438 cable‑network service‑group patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial rules do not apply.
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.