US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 197 of 286 · 8,574 total
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have petitioned the PTAB to review Procomm’s 8,497,813 panel‑antenna patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the Board should not deny institution.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of Veeva's email‑control patent, arguing obviousness over a set of prior‑art publications and urging the Board to institute the review.
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
Deere & Company filed an IPR petition challenging four claims of a dozer‑blade stabilization patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
Digital Global Systems seeks IPR on DeepSig’s 11,018,704 patent, asserting that all 24 claims are obvious over earlier machine‑learning predistortion patents (Jüschke, Holt, Dzierwa). The petition argues that the claimed innovations were well‑known and that the Board should institute the review.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have filed an IPR petition challenging Procomm’s ‘521 patent covering venturi fan‑assisted cooling for telecom equipment, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art patents. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of all challenged claims.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of Veeva's email‑control patent, asserting obviousness over a set of prior‑art publications. The petition argues that discretionary factors strongly favor institution.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Omachron’s vacuum‑cleaner patent (US 11,910,983). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues discretionary factors favor institution.
Axion Biosystems, Inc. v.Agilent Technologies, Inc.
Axion Biosystems petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Agilent’s ’508 patent, asserting that prior‑art Xu‑752 and Jones render all 30 claims obvious or anticipated. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire claim set.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung seeks IPR institution to invalidate Harbor Island Dynamic’s 7,772,673 patent covering deep‑trench isolation with chamfered corners, arguing the claims are obvious or anticipated by prior art such as Yin, Koshimizu, and Norström.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’042 patent covering hybrid devices with personal digital keys and receiver‑decoder circuits, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 20 of Adaptive Spectrum's ’996 patent, asserting obviousness over Klayman and Agarwal in view of Starr. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink petitions the PTAB to cancel nine claims of Barco’s ’676 patent, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references (Ono, Uchida, Deforche, Grimshaw). The petition argues the examiner failed to consider these references and that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield (Black Kite) has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight's U.S. Patent 11,652,834, asserting that its claims are obvious over the Zhang patent and the McNab book. The petition lists 22 claims and argues that passive DNS enumeration techniques were well‑known before the patent's filing date.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Rotolight's U.S. Patent 10,197,257, arguing anticipation by Pohlert and obviousness over Mueller and Reichow. The petition argues discretionary denial is unwarranted and requests the Board to institute the trial.
Par-Kan Company, LLC et al. v.Unverferth Mfg. Co., Inc.
Par‑Kan has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 10‑21 of U.S. Patent 9,745,123, arguing they are obvious over earlier seed‑handling manuals and patents. The petition argues that discretionary‑denial factors do not support a denial and requests institution.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 13 claims of DH International’s ’333 smart‑card patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art smart‑card references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial of institution.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
HP, Dell, and Lenovo have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Universal Connectivity’s packet‑preemption patent, arguing it is anticipated and obvious over earlier Banes and Calvignac disclosures.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic’s ’609 patent covering through‑silicon‑via structures, arguing that all 18 claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Cooney, Dean, Farooq, and Chen.
Par-Kan Company, LLC et al. v.Unverferth Mfg. Co., Inc.
Par‑Kan has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 16‑23 of Unverferth’s seed‑carrier patent, arguing obviousness over several prior‑art manuals and patents. The petition also argues that discretionary denial factors weigh against a denial, urging the Board to institute the review.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
Home Depot petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑19 of U.S. Patent 11,562,402, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art advertising systems (Grannan, Chung, Yang, Ramaiyer) and that discretionary denial is not justified.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Rotolight’s U.S. Patent 10,845,044 covering customizable lighting effects, arguing the claims are obvious or anticipated by prior art such as Mueller, Edwards, and Astera.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Intelligent Clearing Network’s 9,098,855 coupon‑processing patent, asserting that all 57 claims are anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply, seeking institution of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic’s 9,245,826 patent covering anchor vias for backside metal adhesion, arguing that all 20 claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield (Black Kite) has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight’s ’331 patent covering network‑security risk rating. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Tippett, McNab, and McGovern—to argue obviousness under §103 for claims 1‑29.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging files an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Rotolight’s lighting‑control patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Mueller, Edwards, and Astera references. The petitioner also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑13 of U.S. Patent 10,572,896, alleging obviousness over Steuer and Neumeier references and lack of written‑description support. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and requests institution of the review.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical has filed an IPR petition challenging EMKinetics' 9,002,477 patent covering posterior tibial nerve stimulation for overactive bladder, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight's network‑security rating patent (U.S. 9,973,524). The petition relies on §103 obviousness over McNab, McGovern, and Cole references and argues that FINTIV and §325(d) factors oppose denial.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
Klein Tools has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Milwaukee Electric Tool’s U.S. Pat. No. 11,365,026, arguing that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art container patents.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Palo Alto Networks petitions the PTAB to invalidate Croga Innovations’ ’601 patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering content isolation and proxy authentication for collaboration software.
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.