US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 202 of 291 · 8,722 total
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Multiple major carriers, including AT&T and T-Mobile, have filed a Petition challenging ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s '868 patent on grounds of obviousness. The petitioners argue that the core concepts related to beam correspondence and higher layer signaling in 5G NR were anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Jung and Xiong. This challenge targets several claims relating to advanced wireless communication methods.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least one claim based on obviousness. The Board specifically found evidence supporting Claim 1 over Lai and Hasegawa, while also noting inconclusive findings regarding Tsuji/Huang combinations.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that U.S. Patent No. 11,656,422 B2 is likely unpatentable over prior art references Fukui and Sedor. The Board instituted the IPR on all 47 challenged claims based on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC successfully petitioned to challenge U.S. Patent No. 11,435,542 B2 before the PTAB, leading to institution of trial. The petition asserted grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) over prior art references Fukui, Sauter, and Sedor.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Belden Canada ULC's patent, asserting obviousness and anticipation over prior art references including Fukui. The Board found Petitioner’s arguments persuasive regarding the technical scope of the modular fiber optic cassette system.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Stratus Medical regarding a neurotomy system patent (10925664). The Board found reasonable likelihood of success on the obviousness grounds, targeting claims 1-29.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Stratus Medical's RF neurotomy patent (10736688). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Stratus Medical, LLC's '688 patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) using prior art combinations like Racz and Lee.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Stratus Medical's patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claimed RF neurotomy features could be achieved by combining existing prior art references.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Pictiva Displays regarding key claims of a passive electronic component patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on several grounds, particularly over Hanamura, allowing the case to proceed to the merits phase.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenging ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s patent related to beamforming in wireless communications. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate 'compelling merits' despite arguments regarding obviousness.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
The Board found that all originally challenged claims (1-5) were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art combinations. Furthermore, the Patent Owner's Revised Motion to Amend was denied because proposed substitute claims lacked written description support for a key limitation.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
The PTAB found all 29 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of evidence. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's argument that the invention was limited to RF neurotomy, adopting Petitioner's broader view of 'thermal ablation systems.'
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
The PTAB found that the claims were unpatentable over Racz, Fitz, and Lee based on obviousness (103). The Board adopted Petitioner's broad definition of 'thermal ablation systems,' rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow focus on 'RF neurotomy.'
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that Claims 1-17 and 48-52 are unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (Racz, Fitz, Lee) was an obvious modification to create functional RF neurotomy devices.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over prior art (Racz, Fitz, Lee). The Board adopted the Petitioner's broad definition of POSA in the field of thermal ablation systems.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The PTAB found several claims of the patent unpatentable over prior art references Ingle and Hasei. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'a first trench,' requiring adjacency to conductive layer edges. This decision significantly reduces the scope of the asserted claims in OLED manufacturing technology.
NXTGEN TOYS, LLC v.ZipString LLC
NXTGEN TOYS challenges ZipString LLC's string shooter patents (11674774) alleging infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, particularly fibrous surface textures for drag generation, are anticipated or obvious based on prior art combining existing designs with known aerodynamic principles.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems initiated an Inter Partes Review against Croga Innovations Ltd.'s patent 10601780, challenging claims related to network security and virtualization. The petitioner successfully argued that the claimed features were obvious in view of prior art references, leading to the institution of the IPR proceedings.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
Petitioners including AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Nokia, and Ericsson have filed an IPR challenging 22 claims of a patent related to Handover and Carrier Aggregation. The core argument is that the challenged claims are obvious when combining prior art references like Nokia or Ericsson with relevant 3GPP standards. This filing initiates a major challenge against the patent's validity.
NXTGEN TOYS, LLC v.ZipString LLC
NXTGEN TOYS successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ZipString LLC regarding string shooting devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation and obviousness grounds, specifically addressing whether YouTube videos qualify as printed publications under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems' IPR challenge against Croga Innovations regarding network security claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the cited prior art did not teach or suggest the critical 'internal firewall' limitations required by the patent claims.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
AT&T's IPR challenge against Innovative Sonic's wireless patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that AT&T failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, particularly regarding specific claim limitations related to SCell configuration using 3GPP standards.
NXTGEN TOYS, LLC v.ZipString LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board agreed with the Petitioner that combinations of prior art references (Wagner, Yeany, Scorch, Abello) rendered numerous claims invalid under 102 and 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google and Cerence entered a joint settlement that led to the termination of two inter partes review proceedings covering Cerence's automotive voice‑assistant patents. The Board granted the motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google and Cerence have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,081,993, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board has been asked to dismiss the proceeding based on the settlement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google and Cerence reached a settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 7,395,078. The Board found good cause to end the proceeding and kept the settlement documents confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics, Google LLC and Cerence Operating Company have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 7,395,078, a speech‑recognition technology. Consequently, they filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, citing the settlement and early stage of the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google, and others petitioned to challenge Cerence Operating Company's patent on SMS voice messaging technology. The PTAB found sufficient grounds for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 103, meaning the obviousness arguments will proceed to a hearing. This action targets claims related to audio compression and synthesis within mobile communications.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung challenged Cerence's patent 7,395,078 regarding voice messaging over SMS channels by asserting obviousness (103). Petitioners presented multiple grounds combining prior art references (Dolan, Freedman, Halonen) to demonstrate the claimed methods were taught or suggested.
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.