US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 196 of 286 · 8,574 total
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials petitions an IPR against SK nexilis’s 9,457,541 copper‑foil patent, asserting that claims 1‑4 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition cites Fintiv and Advanced Bionics factors to argue for institution.
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of CamelBak’s 9,782,028 drink‑container patent, alleging obviousness over Kiyota, Ribarits and Choi references and arguing that the term “user release mechanism” is means‑plus‑function.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
Lenovo and its allies have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 26 claims of Universal Connectivity Technologies' serial‑communication patent, alleging obviousness over Auld, MPEG‑2, Shin and Hiroshima references.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of U.S. Patent 10,772,456 covering coffee‑brewing control systems, asserting obviousness over a broad set of prior‑art patents. The petition relies on expert testimony and extensive prior‑art analysis to seek cancellation of the claims.
Intel Corporation et al. v.InterDigital, Inc.
Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of InterDigital’s ’556 patent covering in‑loop video filtering, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International seeks to invalidate all twelve claims of U.S. Patent 11,576,524 covering espresso‑machine temperature control, arguing they are obvious over the Startz patent and multiple coffee‑machine references. The petition relies on expert testimony and enumerates four §103 grounds.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Daedalus Prime’s ‘281 patent on the ground of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, and asks the PTAB to institute the review.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all eleven claims of SK nexilis’s 2019 copper‑foil patent, arguing that the claimed surface‑roughness parameters and protective‑layer features are obvious in view of multiple prior‑art references.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Ericsson, Nokia, T‑Mobile, AT&T and Verizon have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑34 of U.S. Patent 9,094,868, arguing that the invention is obvious over earlier patents by Jarvinen and Fox. The petition seeks institution of an inter‑partes review and cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 39 claims of Varia Holdings’ ’984 patent covering emulated RFID functionality in mobile devices. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution to invalidate the patent.
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
Menard has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Signify’s configurable lighting patent, arguing that the CCT switch placement is obvious in view of several prior‑art patents. The petition seeks institution despite parallel district‑court litigation.
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
ETN Capital seeks an IPR of FBA Operating Co.’s RV‑leveling patent, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art such as Thorpe, Clark, Garceau and TealLevel. The petition urges the PTAB to institute review and reject discretionary denial arguments.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) has filed an IPR petition challenging GoPro’s D789,435 design patent for a camera, asserting obviousness over a range of prior‑art designs and urging the Board not to deny institution under FINTIV or § 325(d).
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Cyandia’s 2014 patent on secure information delivery, arguing lack of written‑description support and obviousness over a PCT publication combined with Austin‑Lane. The petition also challenges potential discretionary denials under §325(d) and Fintiv.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 55 claims of SiOnyx’s U.S. Patent 11,069,737 covering textured‑layer image sensors. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103 and asks the Board not to deny institution.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of Cerence’s ’750 patent covering low‑power voice activation. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and urges the Board not to deny institution.
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
STARA petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against AGCO's 11,665,989 patent covering a farm implement contouring toolbar, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 15 claims.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of Barco’s ’951 patent covering wireless meeting‑room technology, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references and arguing that the examiner erred by not considering those references.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
HP, Dell, and Lenovo have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of U.S. Pat. 7,187,307, alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art block‑encoding disclosures (Shin, Yusairi). The petition requests the Board to institute review and invalidate the claims.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials petitions to invalidate SK nexilis’s 2022 electrolytic copper foil patent, asserting that all eight claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and argues that no secondary considerations exist to rescue the claims.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of Barco’s wireless presentation patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and examiner error.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of five claims of Barco’s U.S. Patent 11,403,237, alleging obviousness over Kaplan‑Mardiks and Maeda‑Deforche combinations and arguing examiner error for not considering Deforche.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Procomm’s distributed base‑station patent (US 8,583,100). They contend the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Aarflot, Laroia and Wiedeman and argue that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Cerence’s voice‑command patent, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references and urging institution based on discretionary factors.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Portsmouth Network’s ’088 patent on bandwidth‑sharing routing, arguing obviousness over Dziong, Sathyanath and Jensen, and opposing discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.Rally AG LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Rally’s email‑cloaking patent, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeking institution of the review.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials petitions to invalidate SK nexilis' 11,591,706 copper‑foil patent, asserting that all ten claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition argues against discretionary denial and seeks cancellation of the claims.
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
PreOmics and Biognosys have filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of the ’360 patent, asserting that the nanoparticle‑based protein assay is fully anticipated or obvious over prior publications by Hu, Cai, and Zaccaria.
Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. v.Converter Manufacturing LLC
Ningbo Linhua Plastic seeks an IPR on Converter Manufacturing’s 10,562,222 patent covering thermoformed plastic trays with smooth edges. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art (Portelli and Meadors) and urges the PTAB to institute the review despite discretionary denial arguments.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1, 7‑8, and 11 of U.S. Patent 9,538,788 covering an electronic cigarette heating assembly. The challenger argues that the bulb‑with‑heating‑wire configuration was taught by multiple prior‑art references, making the claims obvious under §103.
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.