US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 22 of 291 · 8,722 total
Xingmai Innovation Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. d/b/a Beatbot, Beatbot Technology (USA) Co., Ltd. et al. v.AIPER GLOBAL PTE. LTD.
Beatbot seeks a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,221,196 covering a pool‑cleaning robot with buoyancy‑control features. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim terms. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,371,685 covering modified PH20 hyaluronidase proteins, asserting lack of written description and enablement.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 16 and 19 of a spinal fusion implant patent owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, asserting obviousness over earlier McLuen and Michelson disclosures. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and highlights alleged concealment of prior art by the patent owner.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of the ’755 spinal implant patent, alleging that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Schäfer, Yeh, Berry, and Suddaby. The petition contends the patent owner concealed key references during prosecution.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitNet’s ’463 patent covering situational networks, asserting that all 12 claims are obvious over prior‑art combinations of location‑based social networking technologies.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 18 claims of Headwater's MMS‑related patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of 3GPP standards and multiple prior‑art patents. The petition lists 14 distinct grounds, each tying specific claim limitations to prior references.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2026-00124, allowing Medtronic to proceed with challenging Moskowitz Family LLC's patent.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2026-00121, allowing Medtronic to challenge Moskowitz Family LLC's patent.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2026-00112 after reviewing the merits, finding that Meta Platforms failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing against SitNet's patent.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Amazon's IPR2026-00088 while denying it for related PGR and IPR proceedings.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB denied American Airlines and Southwest Airlines’ petition to institute an IPR against Intellectual Ventures’ ’326 patent covering high‑data‑rate multi‑channel WLAN. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 18 challenged claims.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Perceptive Automata’s autonomous‑vehicle patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art machine‑learning and sensor‑fusion publications such as Djuric, Zhu, Cox, and Ross.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ ’282 patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition challenging all 35 claims of Netskope’s ’282 patent covering dynamic firewall rule updates, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Coss patent and the Ke publication.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. v.PSLC LLC
Generac Power Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate PSLC’s ’857 microgrid load‑control patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering frequency‑based load shedding.
Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v.Ziklag IP LLC
Amazon Web Services has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of a 2001 music‑distribution patent, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of earlier cable‑distribution patents (Yurt and Logan). The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition against Netskope’s ’336 patent covering network‑access redirection. The challenger contends that all 20 claims are anticipated or obvious over Subbiah and, for dependent claims, over Hinton and Crandell. Fortinet seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS, INC.
Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 9,448,367 owned by Applied Optoelectronics. The petition asserts that all nine claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering optical transceiver adapters.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. v.PSLC LLC
Generac Power Systems has filed an IPR petition challenging PSLC’s ’857 patent covering backup power source load control, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier microgrid technologies such as Lasseter and Lopes.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. v.PSLC LLC
Generac Power Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 27 claims of U.S. Patent 11,967,857 covering backup‑power load control. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of four prior‑art references and defines key terms to support its position.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Dynamic Mesh Networks' 8,520,691 patent covering a structured wireless mesh network. The petition alleges obviousness over five prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute a trial and cancel the claims.
Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v.Ziklag IP LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Amazon Web Services' IPR against Ziklag IP regarding patent 6182128, allowing the review to proceed.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01577 involving Tesla and Perceptive Automata LLC. The Board found that the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
SHENZHEN QIANFENYI INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.Wacom Co. Ltd.
Shenzhen Qianfenyi petitions an IPR against Wacom's 9,977,519 active‑pen patent, asserting that all challenged claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. Four grounds are presented covering §§102 and 103. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Hisense USA Corp. et al. v.Light Guide Innovations LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of Light Guide Innovations' U.S. Patent 8,408,778 covering LED backlighting technology. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of prior art references such as Asada, Kinoshita, Ashdown, Cho and Dejima. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review to overturn the institution of Samsung’s Wi‑Fi patent, finding no good cause for a deadline extension and insufficient explanation of differing claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs and PGRs against Samsung, arguing that Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions in district court and before the PTAB violate recent Revvo precedent.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies have settled IPR2025-01245. The parties filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and separate from the public docket.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,250,758. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR proceeding, citing the settlement and judicial economy.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
Court decision.
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.