US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 192 of 286 · 8,574 total
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 42 claims of Ellodi's ’407 patent covering orally disintegrating corticosteroid tablets, arguing obviousness over Dohil, Grother, Venkatesh and FDA guidance.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia, Ericsson, AT&T, Verizon and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Pegasus’s 5G slice‑aware handover patent, arguing obviousness over multiple 3GPP standards and that the prior art was not raised during prosecution.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of ParkerVision’s ’593 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution under the Fintiv provision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging KP Innovations’ U.S. Patent 10,499,168, asserting that claims 18‑21 are anticipated or obvious over earlier camera‑carousel and dual‑camera mobile phone references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a petition to challenge SiOnyx's U.S. Patent No. 10,224,359.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies has filed an IPR petition against Micron’s 8,945,996 patent covering 3D NAND memory fabrication, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing that PTAB discretion does not apply.
YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging Micron's 3D NAND patent (US 10,872,903). The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over Ahn, Ishikawa, and Fukuzumi prior art and argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary exclusions.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Aspen Networks, Inc.
Petitioners (Verizon, T‑Mobile, AT&T) seek to invalidate Aspen Networks’ 2011 VoIP handoff patent, arguing all 28 claims are obvious over Tagg and the Kottilingal‑Politis combination. They also request the Board not to deny institution under discretionary statutes.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications and Plume Design have filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s ’108 patent, asserting anticipation by Chow‑669 and obviousness over Werner‑Wiley. The petition argues the Board should not deny institution under discretionary standards.
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Google, Samsung and others have filed an IPR petition challenging Truesight’s ’300 patent covering on‑screen video chapter navigation. The petition asserts that prior‑art references Nishikawa, Angiolillo, Vahtola and Ackley render all 20 claims obvious. The Board is asked to institute review and cancel the claims.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of the ’909 MRAM patent owned by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art MTJ publications, and disputes any discretionary denial.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate GoSecure’s 9,954,872 patent on the basis that its claims are obvious over a series of prior‑art references covering malware activity monitoring and intrusion detection.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of U.S. Patent 11,959,533 covering multi‑plunger hydraulic fracturing pumps, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
IDT petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tecan’s 10,036,012 NGS library‑preparation patent, asserting that the Meyer 2009 paper anticipates or makes obvious all challenged claims.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
IDT has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Tecan’s ’357 patent covering NGS library‑preparation methods, asserting obviousness over Iafrate/Kivioja and anticipation/obviousness over Bielas.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, Nokia, AT&T, Verizon, Google and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of U.S. Patent 10,638,463 covering uplink control channel resource allocation. The petition argues obviousness over Takeda, Yan, Marinier and a 3GPP technical contribution, and opposes discretionary denial under §§314(a) and 325(d).
Fortinet, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Fortinet has filed a petition for inter partes review of Croga Innovations' U.S. Patent 10,601,780, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art firewalls and virtualization systems. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and seeks institution of the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 20 claims of Netlist’s 11,386,024 patent covering DDR3 memory‑module training. The petition relies on prior art combinations of Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang and Kim, and cites earlier PTAB decisions that cancelled similar claims. It requests that the Board institute a trial.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of U.S. Patent 11,050,654, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola petition IPR to invalidate Multifold’s 9,158,494 patent covering dual‑screen UI methods, asserting that earlier Seo, Yook and Choi disclosures anticipate or make the claims obvious.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Tecan’s ’108 patent covering nucleic‑acid enrichment for next‑generation sequencing, arguing obviousness over Shapero, Delseny, Jones and Hamady references.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of U.S. Patent 10,632,069 covering budesonide orally dispersing tablets, arguing obviousness over Dohil, Grother and FDA guidance.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Multifold’s 8,842,080 patent covering multi‑display icon handling on handheld devices. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over Japanese patents Ogawa, Yook, and Choi and argues against discretionary denial.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola have filed an IPR petition against Multifold's dual‑screen patent, seeking to invalidate twelve claims as obvious over Yook, Bauer and Lee references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests institution.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate nine claims of Multifold’s ’756 patent covering split‑screen gestures on multi‑display devices, citing Yook, Lee, Aguilar and Purcell as prior art and arguing against discretionary denial.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku has filed an IPR petition challenging VideoLabs’ 7,233,790 patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over the Chatani and Mulligan disclosures and requesting the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of SiOnyx’s ’682 image‑sensor patent, alleging anticipation or obviousness over five prior‑art references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Woodbury Wireless’s ’895 patent covering MIMO Wi‑Fi systems, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Lastinger publication and Sadowsky patent.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike seeks IPR of GoSecure’s U.S. Patent 9,954,872 covering methods for detecting unauthorized computer activities. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Capalik, King, Pike, and Farley, and urges the Board to institute the review.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Multifold's 8,836,842 patent covering dual‑screen handheld devices, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over prior‑art references Chin and Whitehorn.
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.