US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 212 of 286 · 8,574 total
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical Ltd. petitions to invalidate Serendia's microneedling patent (10869812) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references, including Mehta and Na’848. The petition challenges all 20 claims, arguing that the combination of existing technology renders the claimed invention non-novel or obvious.
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical Ltd. filed an IPR challenging 29 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,480,836 related to skin treatment/radiofrequency ablation. The petition asserts that the patent is obvious over various combinations of prior art references (Ganz, Livneh, Hantash, Lee).
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care challenges DexCom's CGM patent (10709364) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,275,717 ('Gross'). The petitioner argues Gross discloses the core concept of using electrochemical sensors and calibration methods to correct for sensor sensitivity differences.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed a Petition challenging 24 claims of DexCom's '528 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness. The challenge focuses on the combination of real-time user settable low glucose alarms with predicted non-user settable low glucose alarms in CGM systems.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Giesecke+Devrient et al. successfully petitioned to challenge Lumenco's patent on Optically Variable Devices (OVDs) for document security. The PTAB found the grounds of obviousness compelling, leading to institution of the IPR proceedings.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH filed a petition challenging the validity of Lumenco's micro-mirror array patent under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious, citing combinations of prior art references like Fuhse262 and Jordan. This initial filing sets the stage for a detailed examination of inventive step in optical device design.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
GOMACO Corporation (Petitioner) challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,535,318 via Petition, arguing that claims 1-8 are obvious over prior art references CIII and Rio. The Petitioner contends a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to combine these references to improve slipform paver efficiency.
Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. v.Dermavant Sciences GmbH et al.
Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. initiated a Petition challenging the validity of Dermavant Sciences GmbH's patent (US 11590088) in the context of psoriasis treatment. The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references like Sonti and Bissonnette.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health Corporation initiated an IPR against Slyde Analytics, LLC regarding a smartwatch patent, asserting obviousness under 103. The petitioner relies on combining multiple prior art references to demonstrate that the claimed features were predictable applications of routine technology in wearable displays.
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
Applied Concepts Inc. filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,194,039, asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed traffic speed detection features are predictable combinations of existing prior art references.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung filed an IPR petition against Maxell's patent covering touchscreen/fingerprint authentication technology, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that various combinations of prior art references (Rogers, Rosenberg, Miyazawa, Rekimoto) render the challenged claims unpatentable.
Uber Technologies, Inc. v.Enovsys, LLC
Uber Technologies filed a Petition challenging the validity of Enovsys's Proximity Alert Patent (6756918) based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that existing prior art, including Layson references and Taylor/Fast teachings, renders the claimed location tracking methods unpatentable. This challenges a key patent in the victim-offender monitoring space.
Uber Technologies, Inc. v.Envosys, LLC
Uber Technologies filed a Petition challenging Envosys's patent 6441752 on grounds of obviousness (103). The petition targets several claims related to proximity alerts and geographic boundary monitoring, arguing that prior art references teach the claimed inventions.
Uber Technologies, Inc. v.Envosys, LLC
Uber Technologies filed a petition challenging Envosys's patent claims related to location tracking and dispatch systems. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art, including vehicle dispatch and victim-offender tracking technologies. Uber contends these grounds are highly likely to prevail in the PTAB proceedings.
Vectair Systems Inc. v.Fresh Products, Inc.
Vectair Systems Inc. filed an opening petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,145,098 owned by Fresh Products, Inc. The challenge asserts that claims 1, 19, and 38 are anticipated (Section 102) or obvious (Section 103) based on various prior art references related to urinal screens and deodorizers.
Valeo SE et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
Valeo SE et al. filed a Petition challenging claims of Foras Technologies Limited's patent (7502958) on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The petitioners argue that the claimed fault-tolerant processor architecture is rendered obvious by combining Bigbee and Nguyen prior art references.
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC v.Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC et al.
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC initiated an IPR challenging claims of Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC regarding well stimulation and remediation. The petitioner asserts that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) over Ayers and obvious (§ 103) when combining Ayers with Frenier.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Broadphone, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. initiated a Petition challenging Broadphone, LLC's patent 8594698 at the PTAB. The petitioner argues that claim 23 is obvious over Spain-I when combined with Hunzinger and Nanda. This challenge relates to mobile location determination technology in wireless communications.
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC v.Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC et al.
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC instituted an IPR against Flex-Chem Holding Company's patent (9944843) concerning Well Stimulation/Acidizing technology. The petition asserts that the claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 based on prior art references, including Frenier and Reyes.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,396,244 in an IPR proceeding against Emerging Automotive LLC, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that combinations of prior art references (Rector, Kleve, Yassin) disclose the claimed cloud services for vehicle customization and security features.
HL Klemove Corporation v.Foras Technologies Limited
HL Klemove Corporation filed an institution petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,502,958 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner asserts that the patent claims are rendered obvious by combining prior art references Bigbee and Nguyen in the field of fault-tolerant processors.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics challenges Natera's patent covering cell-free DNA analysis methods in an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that the claimed method is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references, including Forshew and Pieprzyk/May.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung filed a petition challenging EyesMatch's patent claims related to virtual mirrors and image processing, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge relies on combining various prior art references (e.g., Haan/Francois, Geisner/Lizee) to demonstrate that the claimed technology was predictable.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Partners I LLC
Verizon Wireless and Cellco filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,198,042 on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition targets claims 1-18, arguing that the patent is anticipated by prior art references including Limont and Wright.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. initiated a Petition challenging Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent (9941830) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that combining prior art references like Wakuda and Ramsay renders the claimed linear vibration modules predictable to a POSITA.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent covering Linear Vibration Modules. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on multiple combinations of prior art references. This challenge focuses on core haptics and vibration actuator technology.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Resonant Systems' patent 9941830, asserting that key claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge focuses on Linear Resonant Actuators (LRA) and vibration generation technology, utilizing multiple prior art combinations to demonstrate unpatentability.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Petitioner Senko Advanced Components challenges U.S. Conec's patent (11385415) in a Petition, asserting that claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103). The challenge relies on multiple combinations of prior art references related to optical connectors and adapters.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology Inc.
Aptiv challenges Microchip's '665 patent on grounds of obviousness (103) related to ESD protection circuits. The challenger argues that the claimed circuit, which uses pad capacitance for energy storage, is taught or rendered obvious by prior art references like Verhaege and Miller. This initial petition sets the stage for a detailed technical battle over semiconductor device design practices.
ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE v.Texas Instruments Incorporated
Elmos Semiconductor SE challenged Texas Instruments' LED driver patent (11653432) in the PTAB, alleging obviousness and anticipation. The petitioner relies on a combination of multiple prior art references to invalidate claims 1-20 related to power management ICs.
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.