US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 207 of 291 · 8,722 total
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health settled four inter partes review proceedings, resulting in the termination of all petitions without a merits decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health have settled their disputes and jointly moved to terminate four pending IPRs, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board is asked to grant termination before any final written decisions are issued.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health have settled all disputes over four patents and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPRs. The Board is asked to grant termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) per established precedent.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing and Institute for Environmental Health settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,534,584. The Board terminated the proceeding without a merits decision, granting confidentiality for the settlement.
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.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company challenged the validity of Patent 8,822,143 based on obviousness (Grounds 1-3). The Board denied institution because the Fintiv factors did not support discretionary denial.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company challenged the validity of a food safety patent (7534584) before PTAB, arguing obviousness over prior art like ICMSF and Gombas. The Board decided to institute the IPR based on Fintiv factors, allowing the challenger to proceed with its invalidity arguments.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company successfully petitioned to institute IPR against the '771 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of success over at least one claim. The Board adopted Petitioner's definition for 'validation,' clarifying that it merely requires a sample test negative, rejecting the Patent Owner's broader interpretation regarding commercial release.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company successfully initiated an IPR against Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.'s microbial testing patent (8822143). The Board adopted a narrow definition of 'validated' as merely determining a sample tests negative using the detection assay.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
The PTAB instituted the IPR after finding a reasonable likelihood of success that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board analyzed key claim terms, preliminarily construing 'validated' as a negative test result rather than release into commerce.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories has filed an IPR challenging the validity of a patent covering multiplex digital PCR assays owned by California Institute of Technology et al. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods are unpatentably obvious, representing only a straightforward extension of existing nucleic acid analysis concepts.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories filed a Petition challenging the obviousness of nine claims in patent 10068051, which relates to molecular diagnostics/PCR methods. The petitioner argues that the claimed multiplexed detection techniques are straightforward extensions of existing prior art concepts found in references like Saxonov and Silverbrook.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Petitioners Kia and Toyota filed a petition challenging Emerging Automotive LLC's patent on vehicle access control systems using electronic keys. The challenge centers on multiple grounds of obviousness and anticipation, citing prior art from Kleve, Hatton, Mikan, Xiao, and Sekiyama.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku, Inc. has filed an IPR challenging the validity of the '848 patent owned by Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC. The challenge centers on obviousness (103), arguing that specific combinations of prior art references render the claims unpatentable.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku challenges the validity of Patent '896, asserting that its claims related to audience behavior analysis are obvious over prior art references. The petition focuses on combining elements from Feininger, Ramaswamy, and Conklin to demonstrate lack of novelty.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku challenges U.S. Patent No. 8510768, owned by Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC, over methods for audio content identification and fingerprinting. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are obvious combinations of prior art references involving signal processing techniques.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku challenges a patent held by Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the challenged claims related to audience measurement are obvious over prior art. Petitioner Roku relies on combinations of references like Feininger and Ramaswamy/Conklin to demonstrate predictable results in media playback analysis.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
The PTAB denied Bio-Rad Laboratories' request for rehearing regarding the denial of institution in IPR2024-01178, upholding its finding that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving unpatentability.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.'s IPR challenge against California Institute of Technology et al. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient support for key prior art disclosures in Saxonov from the provisional application, leading to a failure to establish unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. failed to institute an IPR against California Institute of Technology et al.'s patent covering multiplexed analyte detection. The Board found that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient support for key disclosures in the asserted prior art (Saxonov) during the initial petition phase.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR on claims 1-21, allowing Kia and Toyota to challenge Emerging Automotive's patent. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (Kleve/Hatton) supported the challenged limitations regarding encrypted data and privilege settings in vehicle access systems.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
The PTAB denied Roku's request to institute IPR against the '848 patent, finding that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial hinged on the failure of the Petitioner to prove that key prior art (Seet) was entitled to its provisional filing date due to lack of written description support for non-audio media.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Anonymous Media Research Holdings was denied by the PTAB after failing to meet institution standards on grounds of obviousness and novelty. The Board rejected arguments regarding 'content offset' data and content identification results disclosed in prior art references like Feininger and Ramaswamy.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku's IPR against Anonymous Media Research Holdings was denied because the key prior art reference (Seet) lacked written description support for non-audio media, preventing it from qualifying as prior art to the challenged patent.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC was denied by the PTAB, failing to meet the threshold for institution in all challenges. The Board rejected Petitioner's arguments regarding 'content offset,' requiring it to be relative to a reference point within the content.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB found that the majority of claims (1-5 and 7-21) in the '659 patent were unpatentable based on combinations of prior art references. The Board specifically agreed with Petitioner's argument that Kleve combined with Hatton rendered independent claim 1 obvious, finding a reasonable expectation of success for POSITA.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, contending that all Fintiv factors favor denial due to overlapping litigation and ethical issues. The petition argues the Board misapplied the discretionary denial standards.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
The PTAB denied Jumio's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the facial‑recognition patent owned by FaceTec, leaving the institution standing.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio challenges the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against FaceTec’s biometric authentication patent. FaceTec’s counsel argues the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that parallel litigation does not warrant reversal. The response seeks denial of the petition for review.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
The PTAB denied Jumio Corp.’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving FaceTec’s patent 11,693,938. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
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.