US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 194 of 286 · 8,574 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 9,571,833 patent on HEVC motion‑vector prediction, arguing obviousness over Rusert/Zheng and Nakamura/WD4 and disputing the examiner’s allowance.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
IDT seeks to invalidate Tecan's ’399 NGS patent by alleging obviousness over Iafrate/Kivioja and anticipation/obviousness over Bielas, and requests the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Proxense’s biometric‑authentication patent, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references. The petition argues the Board should institute the review and reject discretionary denial arguments.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and arguing no discretionary denial grounds exist.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 19 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
First Quality Enterprises has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Essity's 9,308,138 absorbent article patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
IDT has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Tecan’s ’241 patent, arguing that the claims are fully anticipated or obvious in view of Kivioja (2011) and Bielas (2013) disclosures.
Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v.Asetek Danmark A/S et al.
Cooler Master has filed a petition to cancel claims 1‑7 of Asetek’s liquid‑cooling patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and citing a prior IPR that cancelled similar claims.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s ’313 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art patents Diener and Shaffer. The petition argues the Board should not deny institution and seeks a finding of unpatentability.
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
Slack and Salesforce have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 30 claims of Wrinkl’s ’731 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art chat‑interface patents.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Cyandia’s ’948 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over IBM WebSphere documentation combined with the Austin‑Lane publication.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 41 claims of HydraFacial's skin‑treatment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition asserts that the examiner never considered the Karasiuk‑Palmer, Greenberg, and Trueba teachings and that discretionary denial is not warranted.
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate eight claims of Haptic’s ‘738 patent covering gesture‑based control of terminal devices. The petition relies on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Murakoshi, Stewart, Sachs, Orr, Li and iFixit.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
Innoscience America petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Infineon's 9,070,755 transistor patent, seeking cancellation of all 14 claims on the basis of anticipation and obviousness over Fujishima and related prior art. The petition argues that discretionary denial is improper and requests the Board find the claims unpatentable.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Procter & Gamble’s deodorant‑stick patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack written‑description support.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all four claims of U.S. Patent 8,405,134, which covers MRAM technology. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai, and Parkin, and challenges any discretionary denial of institution.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communications has filed an IPR petition challenging Skyworks' 9,450,579 patent covering RF switch designs. The petition asserts obviousness over Huang and Seshimo references and argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications' U.S. Patent 7,463,703 covering multi‑user detection. The petition asserts that all five claims are obvious under §103 by combining prior‑art references such as Brommer, Lilleberg, Hottinen, Learned, ElGamal, Frank and Zha.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,737,372, which covers MRAM technology. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Bowen, Nagahama, Soukup and Sunai, and challenges the examiner’s earlier rejections.
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Haptic’s 9,996,738 patent covering accelerometer‑based gesture control. The petition asserts obviousness over Murakoshi, Stewart, Sachs, and Orr references and seeks institution of the proceeding.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of U.S. Patent 9,123,463 covering MRAM technology, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the examiner erred. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communication Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Skyworks’ 9,148,194 RF switch patent, asserting obviousness over the Huang and Seshimo references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials petitions an IPR against SK nexilis’s 10,811,689 patent covering electrolytic copper foil for lithium‑ion batteries, asserting that claims 1‑10 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Headwater’s ’918 patent, arguing they are obvious over existing wireless‑device technologies. The petition also contends that PTAB discretion should not block institution, referencing Advanced Bionics and Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 39 claims of Mullen Industries' smartwatch patent, arguing obviousness over five pre‑AIA smartwatch references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial by the Board.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all six claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,198, asserting that the MRAM‑related claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai and Soukup. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted given the ongoing district‑court litigation.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition challenging all eight claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,884,403 covering MRAM technology. The petitioner argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Bowen, Nagahama, Soukup and Sunai, and seeks institution of the trial.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
Klein Tools has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Milwaukee Electric Tool’s ’952 container‑assembly patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition challenging all four claims of Godo Kaisha’s MRAM patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s ’886 SOI switching circuit patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Okashita, Yu, and Burgener. The petition argues that the Board should institute review and that denial is not warranted under Fintiv and §325(d).
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.