US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 193 of 286 · 8,574 total
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku has filed a petition to institute IPR on VideoLabs' ’559 patent covering content‑flow control. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Kloba and Robbin and asserts no discretionary denial grounds.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 10,598,258, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution under the Fintiv factors and argues that the claims lack patentability. The outcome is pending.
Dr. Falk Pharma GMBH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Ellodi's 11,246,828 patent covering budesonide orally dispersing tablets, arguing obviousness over Dohil, Grother and FDA guidance.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 23 claims of GoSecure’s ’697 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on five prior‑art references. The petition argues the Board should institute review and notes that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of NL Giken’s ’592 patent, arguing obviousness over Walker and Chang references and opposing discretionary denial.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of the ’887 patent, arguing they are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering mobile‑device virtualization and remote desktop technologies.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 10,655,435, alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art pump‑control references. The petition argues the case meets the Fintiv institutional factors and requests the Board to institute the review.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate GoSecure’s 9,106,697 patent covering virtual‑machine‑based malware detection. The petition argues obviousness over Capalik combined with King, Pike, and Farley, and opposes discretionary denial.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN seeks an IPR of Tecan’s ’241 patent covering NGS duplicate‑read detection, asserting that all 16 claims are anticipated or obvious over prior‑art references such as McCloskey, Porreca, and Schmitt.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung seeks IPR cancellation of SiOnyx’s 44‑claim image‑sensor patent, arguing that prior‑art references Alie, Baggenstoss, Haddad204 and Park make the claims obvious and that institution should not be denied under § 314(a).
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, asserting that the Nakajima reference makes the claims obvious under §103. The petition argues no discretionary denial applies and seeks institution of the review.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola Mobility and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 11 claims of Multifold’s ’153 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing 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 ‘604 patent, asserting obviousness over Thimmegowda combined with Lee and Kobayashi. The petition seeks institution and argues no discretionary denial applies.
Arthrex, Inc. et al. v.Medshape, Inc.
Arthrex has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of Medshape’s ’222 bone‑fixation patent, arguing obviousness over Monassevitch and over a Bolesky‑Hoffman combination. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §314.
Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn, LLC
Innolux files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 5‑6 of the ‘788 LCD gamma‑correction patent, arguing the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition requests institution and argues no denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Multifold's dual‑screen handheld patent, arguing that the Aono prior‑art reference makes all challenged claims obvious. They request institution and cancellation of claims 1‑6, 11‑14, and 16.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tecan’s ’012 patent covering nucleic‑acid enrichment for NGS, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier academic publications. The petition argues the examiner relied on an unsupported declaration and that no secondary considerations exist.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Woodbury Wireless’s ’930 MIMO patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Lastinger and Gore references.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
IDT has filed an IPR petition challenging Tecan’s ’108 NGS library‑preparation patent, asserting that the Meyer publication anticipates most claims and that the remaining claims are obvious. The petition also argues against discretionary denial.
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑19 of Truesight’s ‘879 patent covering V‑chip‑based parental controls. The petition alleges obviousness over prior art references Sullivan, Leung, and Craner and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio‑Rad has filed an IPR petition challenging Caltech’s ’921 patent covering multiplex PCR assays, asserting that the claims are fully anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Larson, Saxonov, and Silverbrook.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital petitions the PTAB to invalidate 15 claims of a MRAM patent, arguing they are obvious over known MTJ teachings. The petition cites Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai, Parkin and Soukup as prior art and challenges discretionary denial.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia and four other telecom operators have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of six claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s U.S. Patent 10,616,932, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references (Lin1, Lin2, Zhang). The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d).
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’730 biometric‑authentication patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over the Burger and Robinson references.
Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn LLC
Innolux has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of 12 claims of U.S. Patent 7,233,305 covering gamma‑correction ICs for LCDs, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing that earlier procedural deficiencies have been remedied.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of GoPro’s 10,529,052 patent on the ground of obviousness over three prior‑art references (Okubo, Sokeila, Eder). The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under FINTIV or § 325(d).
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Tecan’s ’357 sequencing patent, arguing that the invention was fully disclosed in earlier barcoding and sequencing literature.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’833 HEVC video‑compression patent, asserting obviousness over Rusert, Zheng, Nakamura and WD4. The petition argues the examiner ignored critical prior art and seeks institution of the review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,996,693 patent covering dynamic and static data processing. The petition asserts obviousness over IBM’s Foster and Williams publications and seeks cancellation of 18 claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Sheha and a new set of Randall‑based grounds. The petition asserts no discretionary denial grounds and requests institution.
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.