US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 291 · 8,722 total
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑16 of U.S. Patent 8,438,120, which covers hyper‑parameter optimization for machine‑learning classifiers. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness, and asks the PTAB to institute the trial.
Entegris, Inc. v.--
Entegris has filed a PGR petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,347,711, which covers a wafer‑container gas diffusion device. The company alleges anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness over its own prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of all 31 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.--
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate TopWire's 9,859,202 PoP patent, asserting that all claim limitations are anticipated or obvious over earlier packaging references such as Sun and Chen. The petition includes detailed claim constructions and requests cancellation of the challenged claims.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sanas.AI’s 12,417,756 patent covering real‑time accent mimicking, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art speech‑processing references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--
Cisco has filed a petition to institute an IPR against OptimNet’s U.S. Patent 9,313,101, asserting that claims 1‑6 are obvious over the Mo and Peng references. The petition seeks cancellation of the challenged claims.
Google LLC v.--
Google and Samsung successfully challenged 27 claims of Headwater's ’733 patent, with the PTAB finding all claims unpatentable as obvious over MMS standards and known encryption technology.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging Sanas.AI’s U.S. Patent No. 11,948,550, which claims a machine‑learning system for real‑time accent conversion. The petitioner alleges obviousness over six prior‑art references and proposes a specific claim construction for “fourth audio data representative of.”
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Headwater Research’s ’564 patent covering a mobile device with secure MMS messaging. The petition relies on obviousness arguments combining TS‑23.140, Rakic and several other references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--
Cisco Systems has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,780,887, asserting that its ten claims are obvious over the Pankratov prior‑art reference. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--
Cisco has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,020,961, asserting that all 13 claims are obvious over the Ye reference. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging Sanas.ai’s U.S. Patent No. 12,125,496 covering neural‑network‑based voice enhancement. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and proposes a specific construction for the term “low‑dimensional representation.”
Par Health, Inc. v.InfoRLife, S.A.
Par Health petitions the PTAB to institute a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,370,153 covering ready‑to‑use ketamine infusion formulations. The petition asserts anticipation by a Biomed data sheet and obviousness over Biomed combined with standard pharmaceutical references and commercial infusion bag literature.
Altria Client Services LLC v.--
Altria Client Services LLC petitions the PTAB to cancel a design patent for a dog‑toy set that mimics Marlboro cigarette packaging, citing a 1959 Life Magazine ad and a 1976 trademark registration as prior art.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck challenges Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting that a 2013 publication anticipates all 18 claims and that the specification lacks written description and enablement. The petition seeks inter partes review under § 102 and § 112(a).
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 11,041,149 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, and anticipates all claims under prior art US‑275.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed an IPR petition challenging Halozyme’s ’656 patent covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description and enablement and that US‑275 anticipates all claims.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of Smart Speaker’s ’720 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering microphones, WLAN, speakers, and lighting. The petition highlights a deficient examiner search and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Janssen’s anti‑TNF antibody patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness based on Janssen’s own clinical‑trial data and FDA‑approved labeling.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma petitions to invalidate claims 1‑10 of US 982, alleging they are anticipated and obvious in view of a Janssen‑sponsored clinical trial and FDA‑approved labeling. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Janssen’s US 12,122,824 patent covering an IV golimumab regimen for psoriatic arthritis, arguing lack of novelty and obviousness based on a Janssen‑sponsored clinical trial and FDA‑approved labeling.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma petitions the PTAB to invalidate Janssen’s golimumab patent (US 11,041,020) on the basis that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the company’s own clinical‑trial protocol and other prior art.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate Sanas.ai’s real‑time accent‑correction patent. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering speech‑processing modules. All 18 claims are challenged.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of COGMEDIA’s ’141 Patent, asserting that the claimed social‑card UI features were obvious over earlier patents such as McQueen and Forsyth.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition to invalidate Cogmedia’s ’562 patent covering social‑card interfaces, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of earlier patents. The petition challenges 14 claims and seeks institution of the IPR.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Sanas.ai’s real‑time accent‑conversion patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition invokes 35 U.S.C. § 103 and follows Phillips claim‑construction standards.
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Qomplx’s 12,143,424 patent covering distributed stream‑processing graphs. The petition relies on Barsness and two later disclosures (Chakradhar and Siripurapu) to argue obviousness under §103 for nine claims.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Sanas.AI’s real‑time accent‑correction patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how each claim element is taught by combinations of Feinauer, Prabhavalkar, Fan and others.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Cogmedia’s ’371 patent, asserting that the claimed card‑based social features were obvious over earlier systems such as McQueen and Forsyth. The petition seeks institution on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Viance, LLC v.Koppers Performance Chemicals, Inc.
Viance, LLC has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Koppers' wood preservative patent (US 12,370,716), alleging lack of written description and that the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
VideoAmp Inc. v.The Nielsen Company (US), LLC
VideoAmp has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Nielsen’s audience‑measurement patent, asserting obviousness over Kerr and related prior art. The petition argues discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks institution of the review.
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.