US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 232 of 286 · 8,574 total
CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01179 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. This decision allows the case to proceed to trial.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
The PTAB denied Ascentcare Dental Products' IPR petition against Solmetex, LLC's dental device patent due to procedural timing issues. The Board found the patent was a post-AIA patent and the petition was filed too early.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.L'AIR LIQUIDE, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME POUR L'ETUDE ET L'EXPLOITATION DES PROCÉDÉS GEORGES CLAUDE
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01173, allowing the challenger to proceed to trial. However, all proceedings are currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR against MOSAID's patent, ruling that Infineon failed to adequately explain conflicting claim construction positions taken in district court litigation.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01171, allowing Infineon to challenge MOSAID's patent 7051306.
Amazon.com, Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
The USPTO Director denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition filed by Amazon.com against VB Assets' patent 11087385.
Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01169), allowing the petitioner to proceed to trial against the challenged patent.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.USTA Technology, LLC
The USPTO Board denied the institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed by AT&T Services against USTA Technology's patent RE47720.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01165, allowing Samsung Electronics to proceed with challenging Wilus Institute's patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
Viant Technology LLC et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, including IPR2025-01163. No trial will be instituted in these proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01164, allowing Samsung to proceed against Wilus regarding patent 12004262. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, meaning no trials will proceed in these cases.
LiveIntent, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for the IPR challenge against AlmondNet's patent 8494904, meaning no trial will proceed on this matter.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple IPR petitions, including one involving Google LLC and Valtrus Innovations Limited. No trial will proceed on these matters.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO denied institution of IPR petitions filed by ASUSTeK against Nokia, preventing the trial on patentability issues.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01153, allowing ASUSTeK to challenge Nokia's patent 10536714 after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review proceedings, meaning no trials will proceed on the challenged patents.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, preventing trials in these cases.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple IPR petitions, halting the review process before any trial could begin.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied the institution of IPR proceedings, including one involving Apple Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent claims.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple IPR proceedings, including one involving Apple Inc. and CardWare Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patents.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for several IPR proceedings involving Apple Inc. and CardWare Inc., meaning no trial will take place.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against CardWare Inc.'s patent 10339520, ending the current phase of the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution of the IPR petition filed by Apple Inc. against CardWare Inc.'s patent 10339520, meaning no trial will proceed.
ProAmpac Holdings Inc. v.Sigma Technologies Int'l, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01143 for ProAmpac Holdings Inc., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
The USPTO Board denied institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving Microsoft and Lemko, meaning no trial will proceed.
Apple Inc. v.LS Cable & System Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Board denied institution of the IPR for Apple Inc. against LS Cable & System Ltd., finding that Apple failed to meet the legal threshold required to proceed with the challenge.
Evenflo Company, Inc. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01140 and related proceedings after determining the petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard. This moves the cases forward to merits review.
United Therapeutics Corporation v.Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01139, preventing United Therapeutics Corporation from challenging Actelion's patent 8268847.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR proceedings initiated by Caihong Display Devices against Corning regarding patent 8627684.
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.