US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 209 of 291 · 8,722 total
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and co‑petitioners filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to uphold the institution of IPR2025‑00019 against Mullen Industries’ patent 9,204,283. The brief emphasizes minimal claim overlap, strong petition merits, and the inapplicability of discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Mullen Industries has requested Director Review of IPR2025-00019 and related cases. The PTAB has limited the petitioner’s response to five pages and a five‑day deadline, prohibiting new evidence.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Mullen Industries seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision instituting an IPR against its wireless‑device‑location patent. The request argues the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the IPR would duplicate parallel district‑court litigation.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB upheld its denial of institution in IPR2025-00018, finding that a parallel district‑court trial and weak petition merits justified the decision. Patent Owner’s response reinforces the Director’s discretionary authority under § 314(d).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Mullen Industries seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 11,122,418 patent. The owner contends the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and should deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The USPTO denied Google and Samsung’s request for rehearing of a Director Review order that vacated the institution of an IPR against Mullen Industries. The denial applies to four related IPRs.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
An email from the PTAB Director notifies Google and Mullen Industries that Director Review requests for IPR2025-00018 and three related IPRs have been received. Google may file a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung argue that the IPR covering Mullen Industries’ ’418 patent should remain instituted, emphasizing lack of overlap with district‑court litigation and strong merits. They contend that denying the petition would violate due process under §314(a).
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled all disputes surrounding U.S. Patent 10,740,281. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and the lack of a merits decision. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 10,740,281 after institution.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Sheha and a new set of Randall‑based grounds. The petition asserts no discretionary denial grounds and requests institution.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and arguing no discretionary denial grounds exist.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Daedalus Prime’s ‘281 patent on the ground of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, and asks the PTAB to institute the review.
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
PreOmics and Biognosys have filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of the ’360 patent, asserting that the nanoparticle‑based protein assay is fully anticipated or obvious over prior publications by Hu, Cai, and Zaccaria.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of an IPR for Mullen Industries against Google LLC et al.'s patent 9204283, vacating the initial Board decision based on Fintiv factors.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Mullen Industries LLC's patent on location services, despite initial concerns about discretionary denial. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on strong arguments regarding prior art obviousness and key claim construction terms.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Mullen Industries LLC's patent covering location services and tracking. The Board found sufficient evidence of non-obviousness, despite parallel district court litigation, leading to the institution of all 30 claims.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) involving Google and Mullen Industries. The decision vacated the initial grant of institution based on a holistic review of Fintiv factors.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of an IPR against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC's patent 10740281. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that several claims related to multi-core processor power management are unpatentable over combinations of Sutardja and Mathieson.
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
PreOmics GmbH et al. successfully petitioned for institution in the IPR against The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc., challenging claims related to sensor arrays for protein corona analysis. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
The Board found that six claims (1, 4, 6, 17, 22, and 25) of the patent were unpatentable based on anticipation by prior art Cai. The decision hinged on a broad interpretation of key terms like 'biological sample' and 'subset of particles,' which favored the Petitioner's arguments regarding the scope of the claims.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,775,326, jointly moving to terminate the proceeding.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to limit access to the agreement to the parties and the Board.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security reached a confidential settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 11,775,326. All pending motions were dismissed as moot and the settlement documents were sealed.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz challenged Orca Security Ltd.'s cloud security patents, arguing that the claimed vulnerability scanning methods are obvious combinations of known techniques. The petitioner asserts that merging Veselov's snapshot scanning with Basavapatna's risk assessment renders the invention predictable.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent (11775326), covering 28 claims related to cloud vulnerability scanning. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over Veselov and Basavapatna.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands challenges a Request for Director Review filed by BuzzBallz over the eligibility of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,441, a design patent covering a pop‑top can lid. The petitioner argues the Board correctly found the patent eligible under the AIA and that the new design lacks written‑description support, urging denial of the request.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
The PTAB denied MPL Brands' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in the BuzzBallz patent case.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
BuzzBallz, LLC asks the PTAB Director to vacate the institution of a post‑grant review on its pre‑AIA design patent, arguing the Board misapplied written‑description standards and ignored expert testimony.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands contests the validity of BuzzBallz’s design‑patent for a beverage can lid, arguing that new matter was added to the parent application, making the patent eligible for post‑grant review under the AIA. The reply refutes the patent owner’s reliance on prior PTAB decisions and emphasizes examiner findings of new matter.
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.