US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 239 of 291 · 8,722 total
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation challenged M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.'s patent claims related to wound treatment, arguing that the technology was anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The petitioner asserted grounds of anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103), citing combinations involving Bitel, Watson, Dolliver, and Argenta.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Limited challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,048,696 in the PTAB, asserting that the claims related to inductive power transfer systems are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition combines multiple prior art references (Onishi, Flowerdew, Partovi, Baarman392, Tocci) to demonstrate predictability in alignment and frequency modulation technology.
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of patent 9184157 held by 138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al. The challenge asserts that the claimed ESD protection circuits are obvious over prior art references Reiner and Takahara. The petition was successfully instituted, setting up a detailed examination of the combination of existing circuit knowledge.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics challenged 18 of Sfara, Inc.'s crash detection claims in an IPR petition, arguing they are rendered obvious by prior art references Green and Wright. The petitioner asserts that combining existing sensor technologies with methods for logging driving information allows a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) to achieve the claimed features.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Limited successfully secured institution of its IPR against Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent (9048696) based on obviousness grounds. The Board found that the combination of prior art references, specifically Onishi and Flowerdew, provided a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for key claims in Inductive Power Transfer technology.
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group successfully navigated the initial hurdles in its IPR against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited, leading to the Board instituting the challenge. The Board found sufficient preliminary evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness (102 and 103) concerning liquid crystal display protective circuits.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cambridge Mobile Telematics against Sfara, citing Petitioner's failure to provide a proper claim construction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Additionally, the Board found that key 'component' terms functioned as means-plus-function limitations lacking cognizable structure in the patent specification.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–7 and 9–14 were unpatentable over prior art references. The petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, particularly regarding the combination of Onishi and Flowerdew for independent claim 1.
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The Board found that the majority of claims (1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–18) were unpatentable over Reiner and Takahara based on obviousness. However, Claims 2, 8, and 14 survived the challenge, indicating a mixed outcome for the Petitioner.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok’s IPRs were stayed as the PTAB initiated a sua sponte Director Review to reconsider institution decisions after denying the patent owner’s motion to terminate.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The PTAB granted a sua sponte Director review of the institution decisions in TikTok’s IPRs against Cellspin Soft’s diabetes‑monitoring patent, staying the proceedings pending a new opinion.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google has filed a petition for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Dialect’s voice‑command patent. The petition contends the Board misapplied the Coffman reference and ignored unrebutted expert testimony, arguing that the disputed claim steps are obvious. Google requests that the decision be vacated and the IPR be instituted.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The USPTO denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00751, leaving the institution of the IPR against Dialect’s patent in place.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google has filed a petition for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution in an IPR against Dialect’s voice‑command patent. The petitioner contends the Board misinterpreted the Coffman reference and ignored unrebutted expert testimony.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google and Dialect have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00750 after reaching a settlement, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for an IPR against Dialect’s in‑vehicle voice‑command patent. The petitioner contends the Board misread the Coffman prior art and ignored expert testimony.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google has filed a petition for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against its vehicle voice‑control patent (U.S. 7,502,738). The petitioner contends the Board misread the Coffman prior art and ignored unrebutted expert testimony, arguing that factual disputes should be decided on a full record.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Dialect's voice‑command patent. The petition argues the Board misread the Coffman reference and ignored expert testimony, urging that any factual disputes be resolved on a full record.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The PTAB initiated a sua sponte Director review of several IPRs involving TikTok and Cellspin Soft, staying the cases while it re‑examines institution decisions tied to RPI and sovereign‑entity arguments.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok challenged a patent owner’s motion to terminate several IPRs over alleged failures to disclose a foreign party‑in‑interest and person‑eligibility issues. The PTAB denied the motion and initiated a sua sponte Director review, staying the IPRs pending further analysis.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00748 concerning Patent 8,015,006. The original institution ruling remains unchanged.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The Director denied Google LLC's request for a rehearing of the institution decision in IPR2024-00746, keeping the original institution ruling intact. No new arguments or evidence altered the outcome.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google and Dialect reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-00750 after the trial had been instituted. The settlement agreement will be kept confidential per Board order.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Court decision.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The USPTO denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00747 concerning Patent 7,502,738 owned by Dialect LLC.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Court decision.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla sought a Director Review of the USPTO's institution of iQar's patent 10,850,616. The Board denied the request, leaving the institution in place.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla seeks Director review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on its vehicle‑power‑management patent. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied the § 325(d) discretionary denial test, re‑hashing arguments already considered during prosecution.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
iQar Inc. has filed a Director Review Request challenging the PTAB’s institution of its U.S. Patent 10,850,616, asserting misapplication of § 325(d) and lack of deference to the examiner’s § 112 analysis. The petition seeks to overturn the institution and set proper precedent for future panels.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok Inc. challenged Cellspin Soft, Inc.'s patent (8904030) in an IPR petition, arguing the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art like Hiroishi/Takahashi and Singh129/Bluetooth. The PTAB decided to institute the proceeding based on favorable institutional factors.
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.