US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 195 of 286 · 8,574 total
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield challenges BitSight’s ’615 patent on network‑asset mapping, asserting that the claims are obvious over Longo, McNab, Maltego, Zhang, Tippett and Shull. The petition lists seven §103 grounds covering all 100 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Headwater Research’s 2017 patent on data‑usage monitoring in mobile devices, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all nine claims of Molecular Loop’s ’730 DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing that the Chee patent and a combination of other references anticipate or render obvious each claim. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts' 8,520,000 patent covering interactive chart embedding. The petition argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that there is no objective evidence of patentability.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts’ ’595 patent covering interactive chart creation. The petition alleges all 18 claims are obvious over prior‑art tools such as Rostoker and QlikView manuals, invoking 35 U.S.C. §103.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope petitions to invalidate Belden’s 11,740,423 patent covering modular fiber‑optic cassette trays, asserting that prior art references render all 30 claims obvious or anticipated.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research’s 9,179,359 patent covering differentiated network‑access policies for mobile devices, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’042 patent covering RFID‑enabled hybrid devices, arguing that all asserted claims are obvious over prior art such as Dua and Buer and requesting the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB
Roku has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Dolby’s 1993 audio‑compression patent, arguing that all 17 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references and that the Board should not deny the petition under discretionary statutes.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 7,776,120 covering a cyclonic vacuum cleaner with a moveable divider plate. The petition alleges lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. Discretionary factors are cited to favor institution.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts’ ’892 patent covering interactive chart generation. The petition relies on ten grounds of obviousness under §103, citing Becerra, Couckuyt, Keys, Moyer, Jou and QlikView manuals as prior art.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Scale Video Coding LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of the 372 Patent, arguing they are obvious over Shao‑028 and Shao‑423. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
Cholla Energy and OBM have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against LANCIUM's 11,283,261 patent covering behind‑the‑meter flexible datacenters, arguing that all 16 claims are obvious over existing green‑energy datacenter literature.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications petitions the PTAB to invalidate Adaptive Spectrum’s ’398 patent covering Wi‑Fi performance optimization, asserting that all 25 claims are obvious over prior art (Diener and Shaffer). The petition also argues against discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Runergy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Trina Solar’s 009 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering TOPCon solar cell structures.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
POSCO seeks IPR cancellation of ArcelorMittal’s hot‑stamped coated steel patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Truesight’s ’803 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of eight prior‑art references covering kiosk‑based streaming, authentication, and removable media.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Headwater Research’s ’110 patent on data‑usage billing. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and argues against discretionary denial. A stipulation not to pursue the same issues in parallel district‑court litigation is also included.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Varia Holdings’ ’947 RFID patent, asserting that all 32 claims are obvious over prior‑art Bluetooth/RFID references. The petition seeks institution and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
FUJIFILM and a coalition of camera makers have filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’266 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple pre‑2005 camera‑technology patents. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED et al. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
Qualcomm files an IPR petition targeting Cobblestone’s 7,924,802 patent, asserting that its multi‑carrier claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition mirrors a pending Samsung IPR and seeks institution without new arguments.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
POSCO has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of ArcelorMittal’s 2021 steel‑coating patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Runergy has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 11 claims of Trina Solar’s 9,722,104 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and argues discretionary denial does not apply.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications’ ’651 patent covering CDMA multi‑user detection, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Fuller, Reznik, Frank, and Zha.
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
Slack and Salesforce petition the PTAB to invalidate Wrinkl’s ’731 patent covering subsidiary‑thread chat interfaces, asserting that the 2017 Cohen publication anticipates all 30 claims. They also argue the patent’s priority date is too late, making Cohen prior art under §§102 and 103.
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
New Balance seeks to invalidate Nike’s 2014 footwear patent covering a knitted upper with a thermally bonded skin layer, arguing the claims are obvious in view of prior art such as Becker, Dojan, Wildeman and Farys, and requesting the Board to institute the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’384 patent covering fake MAC address techniques. The petition relies on obviousness over Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Yun, Satish and Jalfon. No discretionary denial is requested.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Varia’s RFID‑enabled mobile device patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the claims lack novelty and meet PTAB discretionary standards for institution.
Cargill, Incorporated v.Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLC
Cargill has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Bunge’s 7,645,473 patent covering vegetable‑fat blends, arguing the claims are obvious over a 1998 Petrauskaite publication and other prior art. The petition details extensive calculations to show the claimed ranges are disclosed or predictable. The Board must decide whether to institute the trial.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of six claims of Ericsson’s ’654 patent, asserting that prior‑art references Park, Kim, and Panasonic render the claims obvious or anticipated.
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.