US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 20 of 291 · 8,722 total
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota’s IPR petition challenging Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑profile patent was instituted after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 10‑20.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. sought to invalidate Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑profile patent. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of success and instituted the IPR, focusing on obviousness over several prior‑art references.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
GE Healthcare petitions to invalidate Johns Hopkins’s 11,938,201 patent covering FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceuticals, arguing that claims 1‑3 are obvious over US‑633, US‑121, Meletta and Jansen references.
Terumo BCT, Inc v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent. The challenger asserts anticipation, obviousness, lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, and multiple §112 deficiencies. The petition is pending PTAB institution.
Kia America, Inc. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Kia and Toyota have filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition challenging Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑key sharing patent (US 12,337,715). Petitioners allege obviousness over four prior‑art references and assert lack of written description for key claim limitations. They seek institution and cancellation of claims 1‑24.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota seeks to invalidate Emerging Automotive’s U.S. Patent 12,337,716 covering cloud‑based vehicle settings by alleging obviousness over multiple prior art references. The petition requests the Board to institute an IPR and cancel all 13 claims.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota and Kia have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Emerging Automotive’s vehicle e‑key patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details four statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’358 patent covering multiband antenna arrays. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. et al. v.Howmet Aerospace Inc.
Stanley Black & Decker has filed an IPR petition challenging Howmet Aerospace’s ’358 blind fastener patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art such as Corbett, Kleinman, and Brewer. The petition outlines four §103 grounds and seeks institution of the trial.
Kia America, Inc. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the Post-Grant Review (PGR) for Kia America against Emerging Automotive, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB denied institution in certain IPR proceedings involving Toyota Motor Corporation and Emerging Automotive LLC, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00069, allowing GE Healthcare Ltd. to challenge claims in patent 11938201 held by The Johns Hopkins University.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00059 involving Toyota Motor Corporation and Emerging Automotive LLC. The Board found the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
Foleon seeks a Director review to compel entry of adverse judgment after Turtl Surf disclaimed all challenged claims of its interactive‑document patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred in denying a motion for adverse judgment, citing precedent where such judgments were entered pre‑institution.
Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
Foleon’s request for Director review to impose an adverse judgment on Turtl Surf & Immerse was denied. The Patent Owner argued procedural impropriety and reliance on established PTAB precedent rejecting adverse judgments after a disclaimer.
Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
The USPTO Director denied Foleon Inc.’s request for review of the decision to deny institution of an IPR against Turtl Surf & Immerse Limited’s patent 12,118,290. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
Foleon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Turtl’s ’290 patent covering modular document generation, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Kannuu Pty. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00071, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Kannuu's patent 11573939.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing they are obvious over the Lavender and Fletcher‑Haynes systems (and Min for a subset). The petition relies on detailed algorithmic comparisons and cites §103 unpatentability.
Samsara, Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
Samsara has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Motive's camera‑calibration patent (US 12,136,276). The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering similar autonomous‑vehicle imaging and calibration techniques. It requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Samsara, Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR proceeding (IPR2026-00034) involving Samsara, Inc. and Motive Technologies, Inc., finding the petitioner failed to meet the standard for likelihood of prevailing.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its inter partes review of Palisade’s U.S. Patent No. 8,148,962 before the Board had decided whether to institute the case. The motion relies on the Board’s discretion to terminate early‑stage proceedings and cites prior PTAB decisions granting similar dismissals.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC et al.
Voltage, LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of Shoals Technologies' solar connector patent, asserting obviousness over Machida combined with Solon or Kim and Sakatani. The petition adopts claim constructions from a related ITC case and seeks institution of the review.
Ontel Products Corporation et al. v.Happy Products, Inc.
Ontel Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Happy Products' RE’479 tablet‑pillow patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references covering similar multi‑angle media supports.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s ’962 voltage‑regulator patent, asserting obviousness over the Scott patent and over Scott combined with Gradinariu. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim comparisons to the prior art.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Onesta IP, LLC
NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Onesta IP's U.S. Patent 11,841,803.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its IPR before the Board institutes trial, arguing the proceeding is at an early stage and resources are minimal. The Board has historically granted such pre‑institution dismissals.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine Sonos claims covering multi‑zone audio control, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references such as Geiwitz, Van Hulle, Aiso, and Allen.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s U.S. Patent 9,524,974 covering NAND flash memory structures, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds targeting all challenged claims.
Apple Inc. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Apple seeks dismissal as a co‑petitioner in an IPR over Headwater Research’s location‑service patent after the related Texas lawsuit was thrown out. The motion relies on procedural rules and lack of opposition from the patent owner.
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.