US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 22 of 188 · 5,620 total
Hisense USA Corp. et al. v.Light Guide Innovations LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition challenging Light Guide Innovations' 8,267,537 patent covering LED backlight units. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Liu, Roberts, and Liu‑660, and establishes standing to proceed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01540 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled eight related IPRs before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings on the parties' joint motion.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,439,015 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public policy favoring settlement.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display’s U.S. Patent 10,439,015 covering OLED TFT display structures. The petition alleges obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references, including Kim‑584, Kim‑923, Moon, Masao and others. No claim constructions are asserted; the claims are to be given their plain meaning.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01546 because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims. This decision is based on merits review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Luxottica of America Inc. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01512, allowing Luxottica to challenge E-Vision's patent 11971612 on the merits.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,542,571 B2 before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petitions and terminate the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 7,676,194 covering an ultrawideband broadband repeater. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references including Ganz, Larrick, Engels, Perlman and Roese. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Perceptive Automata’s ’579 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art neural‑network publications and that many claim limitations are unpatentable printed matter.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution for six IPR proceedings, allowing them to proceed to the merits phase. This decision is part of a broader notice covering multiple institutional decisions.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple’s IPR petition to invalidate MyPort’s 9,832,017 image‑tagging patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting that the prior art does not disclose a media data converter performing all claim functions. MyPort urges the Board to deny the petition and refuse to institute review.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Court decision.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Exhibit 2002 is a settlement agreement in IPR2025-01395 between Top Glory Trading Group Inc., DP Dream Pairs, Inc., and Cole Haan LLC concerning U.S. Patent No. 768969. The parties resolved the dispute, terminating the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging MyPort’s ’066 patent, asserting that claims 6‑17 are obvious over prior art references Spatharis, Manjunath, Fuller, and Jain. The petition seeks institution of the review to cancel the challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 6‑17 of MyPort’s ’067 patent, arguing they are obvious over Spatharis/Manjunath and Fuller/Jain. The petition requests institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 6‑17 of MyPort’s ’017 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Spatharis/Manjunath and Fuller/Jain. The petition references a prior IPR that was previously instituted and settled.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all six claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’909 FinFET patent, asserting obviousness over Lin, Liaw, Chang, and Liu references. The petition argues that each claim element is disclosed in the prior art and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MyPort’s ’998 patent covering media capture, encryption, and remote storage. The petition relies on Vataja, Cox, and Hershey references to argue obviousness of all 14 claims.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01395, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on patent 11,544,183, arguing that early termination serves public policy and conserves resources.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian settled the IPRs covering patent 11,544,183 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement documents to remain confidential.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Security First Innovations, LLC
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Security First Innovations’ U.S. Patent 8,271,802, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and lack of novelty. The petition outlines seven grounds covering the full claim set.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 13 claims of BrainGuard’s helmet safety patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition details claim‑by‑claim comparisons to Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Madey, Piper and Halldin references.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 5‑12 and 17‑20 of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition relies on §§102 and 103 and detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis of Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Piper, and Halldin references.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed a petition to invalidate BrainGuard's 9,516,909 helmet patent, asserting that its layered, sliding‑helmet claims are anticipated or obvious in view of prior‑art helmets such as Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Madey, and Dotsuko.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 16 claims of BrainGuard Technologies’ helmet patent, alleging obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art helmets that employ sliding layers and chin‑strap configurations.
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of U.S. Patent 11,716,171, which covers a wireless terminal for multi‑user uplink transmission. The petition asserts obviousness over the Kim, Chu, and Choi publications and argues lack of written description support. Samsung seeks institution of the review and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for IPR against Wilus Institute's patent, 10911186, covering multi-user uplink transmission. The PTAB found reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references Kim, Chu, and Choi across all 18 challenged claims. This institution decision sets the stage for a full trial on technical merit.
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.