US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 228 of 291 · 8,722 total
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG has initiated an IPR challenge against Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.'s LED packaging patents, arguing that the core 'U-shaped' electrode structure is anticipated and obvious in existing prior art.
TransCore, LP et al. v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore, LP has filed an opening petition challenging 20 claims related to passive RFID tag backscatter communication. The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods for improving range and power harvesting are obvious over existing prior art, including Boyer textbooks and various industry handbooks.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging three claims related to anisotropic heat-spreading panels used in electronic packaging. The petitioner argues that these claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, including Kuo and Nozaki/Hanai. Samsung also contends the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
SHENZHEN ROOT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,413,380 held by Chiaro Technology Ltd. The challenge centers on obviousness (Section 103), arguing that the claimed features of the breast pump are combinations of existing prior art references like Chang, Weber, and Guthrie.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson filed a Petition challenging Active Wireless Technologies' patent on 5G HARQ-ACK feedback mechanisms. They assert that the claims are obvious over prior art references Wang and Yang under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition also argues against discretionary denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics has filed a Petition challenging all 22 claims of Oura Health's '147 Patent, alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Yuen, Schröder, and Mestas.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics filed a petition challenging Oura Health Oy's U.S. Patent No. 10,893,833, asserting that all twelve claims are obvious over prior art references Yuen and Schröder. The petitioner grounds its challenge entirely on Section 103 (obviousness), arguing various combinations of the cited patents render the claims invalid. The petition also addresses discretionary denial issues under §314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Oura Health Oy's patent for a wearable computing device, arguing that the invention is unpatentable over existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that combining references such as Schröder and Yuen renders the claimed finger ring obvious, covering both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Juniper Networks has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,014,394 held by Portsmouth Network Corporation. The petitioner asserts that the patent claims related to multicast routing and stream management are obvious over existing prior art references. This challenge targets core network fabric technology.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung Electronics filed a Petition challenging Maxell's U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590 on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioners argue that the claimed features related to multi-radio cellular phones and video processing are merely combinations of existing prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied Samsung's Post-Grant Review petition against Ouraing because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all 16 challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to challenge Oura Health's patent (11868178) in a PGR proceeding, leading the PTAB to institute the case. The Board found Petitioner's arguments regarding prior art disclosures for battery and PCB placement sufficient to proceed to trial.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
AT&T Services Inc. failed to convince the PTAB that its claims were unpatentable over prior art references Centonza and Han. The Board denied institution, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either anticipation or obviousness grounds. This decision maintains the validity of Innovative Sonic Limited's patent in cellular network connectivity.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB instituted the IPR petition filed by Juniper Networks against Portsmouth Network Corporation, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The Board specifically accepted arguments that challenged claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and others based on obviousness over Blease in view of Weyman and Hu.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR petition challenging claims in a semiconductor device patent, citing failure to meet the particularity requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). The Board found that several grounds were voluminous and excessive, particularly those involving complex prior art combinations.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.'s patent for LED carrier leadframes. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness grounds (102/103).
SHENZHEN ROOT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against Chiaro Technology's breast pump patent (11413380) because the petitioner had filed a parallel petition in another proceeding.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Ericsson Inc. et al.'s IPR challenge against Active Wireless Technologies LLC, finding compelling evidence of unpatentability under 102 and 103. The Board determined that the preliminary record supported a meritorious challenge regarding HARQ-ACK feedback mechanisms in 5G NR PUCCH format adaptation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR petition against Oura Health because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Samsung against Oura Health because the patent owner had formally disclaimed all 12 challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Oura Health regarding the 'Wearable Computing Device' patent (9582034). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would prevail on grounds of obviousness over LeBoeuf.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Juniper Networks successfully navigated the PTAB's institution standards, leading to trial on numerous claims of Portsmouth Network Corporation's patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness grounds over Blease in view of Weyman and Hu.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against patent 10,129,590, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that multiple combinations of prior art references—including N93 and various technical specifications—met the criteria for institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics challenged Oura Health's patent claims in a PGR proceeding, arguing obviousness and anticipation. The PTAB found the vast majority of the grounds unpersuasive, but ultimately cancelled two dependent claims (17 and 18) under § 112(d).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB found that several claims related to finger-worn monitoring devices were unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'substantially transparent external potting,' which aided the Petitioner's argument of obviousness.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that ten of the fifteen challenged claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on various combinations of prior art references (Blease, Weyman, Hu, Deng). The Board found sufficient motivation to combine Blease and Weyman for distributed architecture features, while also finding that combining Blease/Weyman with Hu was plausible for bandwidth efficiency improvements.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00990, finding Halliburton’s claims 11,12 and 14‑20 unpatentable and also striking substitute claims 29‑37, while upholding claims 1‑10 and 21‑23. Halliburton has appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
Weatherford files an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny Halliburton’s Director Review Request, asserting the Board’s findings on claims 14, 29‑31, and 33 are well‑founded and that the patent owner’s arguments misinterpret the claim language and prior art.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
Halliburton seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found several gravel‑packing screen claims unpatentable, arguing the Board misread claim language, offered no motivation for its combination, and abused its discretion.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco seeks Director Review of a PTAB denial that found its VPLS failover claims un‑obvious over the Mitchell reference. The petition alleges the Board improperly added claim limitations, applied the wrong obviousness standard, and ignored the modified prior‑art embodiment.
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.