US PTAB Patent Cases
2,587 decisions indexed
Page 20 of 87 · 2,587 total
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy filed an opening Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 11,091,992, asserting that its claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references within the hydraulic fracturing and well control systems field.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
Petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 9,245,374 regarding 3D voxel data processing used in medical imaging, asserting anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Sekiguchi and Partain. The claims are broadly challenged across multiple statutory grounds (102 and 103) by 3Shape A/S et al., citing related district court litigation.
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
Apple Inc. has filed an IPR challenging NL Giken's content streaming patent, asserting that core bookmarking and next-content navigation features are obvious over prior art references Cordray and Wiser.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
The PTAB granted institution for Post-Grant Review on all 20 claims of the '920 patent covering mobile payment systems, facing challenges under § 101 (eligibility) and § 103 (obviousness). The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with arguments regarding abstract ideas and inventive concepts.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
The PTAB instituted trial on grounds of eligibility (101), anticipation (102), and obviousness (103) for all 20 claims related to mobile payment processing. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a likelihood of unpatentability, despite some claim limitations being construed favorably to the Patent Owner.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of a PGR for Neurocrine against Spruce because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims.
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements, Inc.'s petition against Duesenfeld GmbH's battery recycling patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability based on obviousness or indefiniteness across all challenged claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent claims on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board ruled that the claimed modified polypeptides must exhibit hyaluronidase activity, narrowing the scope of the genus. This decision sets a precedent for interpreting functional limitations in polypeptide patents.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme successfully challenged Halozyme's patent claims in a PGR proceeding, focusing on enablement and obviousness. The Board adopted a functional claim construction requiring 'modified PH20 polypeptide' to exhibit hyaluronidase activity.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR petition against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, leading to a trial on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (102/103) and indefiniteness (112). The Board preliminarily adopted all three constructions proposed by the Petitioner for element [1.C], setting up complex claim construction issues for trial.
Toyota Motor Corp. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. successfully petitioned to challenge AutoConnect Holdings LLC's patent, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on grounds of obviousness (103) and patent eligibility (101). The Board found it likely that multiple claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Hendry.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
GE Healthcare Ltd.'s Post-Grant Review petition against The Johns Hopkins University was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness and statutory defects. The Board acknowledged strong arguments regarding combining prior art (US-633/Meletta with Jansen) and potential lack of enablement for radiopharmaceutical claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s '618 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness regarding modified PH20 polypeptides. The PTAB adopted a functional claim construction requiring hyaluronidase activity for the claimed genus.
Syngenta Crop Protection AG v.Inflexion Point Technologies, LLC
Syngenta Crop Protection AG's petition to invalidate Inflexion Point Technologies' patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence of anticipation or obviousness across multiple grounds, rejecting all challenges including enablement.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Halozyme's PH20 polypeptide claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description and enablement. The Board instituted the petition, finding that the specification broadly defines a 'modified PH20 polypeptide' but lacked sufficient examples to support the vast scope of multiply-substituted variants claimed.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent on hyaluronidase polypeptides under grounds of enablement and obviousness. The PTAB granted institution, finding the claims cover a vast genus that requires undue experimentation to fully enable.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Halozyme, Inc.'s claims covering a genus of modified PH20 polypeptides. The Board found that the broad scope of the claimed variants lacked adequate written description and enablement support in the original patent disclosure. This decision significantly challenges the breadth of the patented technology in hyaluronidase drug development.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Halozyme, Inc.'s patent (12195773) based on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board found it likely that the claims defining a vast genus of modified polypeptides are unpatentable due to insufficient disclosure regarding solubility and activity prediction.
Almendra Pte. Ltd. et al. v.Fienile Agronecócios LTDA
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00055, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review after determining a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.
Straumann USA successfully petitioned for institution in a Post-Grant Review challenging Smart Denture Conversions' dental implant patent (12156781). The Board found likelihood of unpatentability based on indefiniteness and lack of written description/enablement. This sets a precedent regarding the sufficiency of disclosure in complex medical device claims.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00057, allowing the challenger to proceed with trial against patent 12234236.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
The PTAB denied institution for the petitioner's IPR challenge against a wireless device patent related to antenna complexity. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to combine prior art references, specifically because such combinations violated critical spatial diversity requirements of the patented invention.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company challenged the '771 patent on obviousness grounds related to modular compositing and microbial testing protocols. The PTAB institution decision was driven by parallel district court litigation and a compelling merits case presented by the petitioner. This sets up significant future challenges in both administrative and judicial forums.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.'s patent 11108595. The Board found the petition particularly strong on the merits and favorable regarding Fintiv factors.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. filed a petition challenging Orca Security Ltd.'s patent via IPR, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Veselov and Basavapatna. The petitioner argues that combining these two references teaches every limitation of the challenged cloud security claims.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Dropbox, Inc. filed a Petition challenging Motion Offense LLC's patent (11611520) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed file sharing and folder synchronization features are predictable combinations of prior art references like Houston, Garcia, Manzano, and Wu.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Dropbox, Inc., the petitioner, challenges Motion Offense LLC's patent (US 11611520) in an IPR proceeding. The core argument is that the claimed cloud storage and file transfer methods are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Riepling, Manzano, Meisels, and Garcia.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
AT&T and other carriers challenged Daingean Technologies' patent (US 10,932,207) in an IPR petition. The challengers argue that the claims related to random access procedures and power control are anticipated or obvious by prior art references Lee1 and Lee2.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson and other petitioners filed an opening petition challenging 7177369's validity on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The challenges focus heavily on the combination of prior art references (Wong, Minn, Lehne) to invalidate claims related to OFDM channel estimation and smart antenna technology.
VIVITRO LABS INC. v.BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC
ViVitro Labs Inc. filed an IPR challenging the validity of BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC's patent (9237935). The petitioner asserts that the claimed heart valve testing system is anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Xi and Goldstein.
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.