US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 241 of 291 · 8,722 total
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla Inc.'s IPR against iQar Inc. was instituted by the PTAB, allowing claims related to vehicle power management logic to proceed to trial. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), particularly regarding the combination of prior art references.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The PTAB found that claims 1-7, 12-17, and 19-23 were unpatentable over prior art (Coffman/Kennewick/Lee) based on obviousness. The Board adopted the Petitioner's view that 'synchronize' only requires updating context information without duplicating entry order.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The PTAB found Claim 12 unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Kennewick and Ross. The Board concluded that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine these prior art references with reasonable expectation of success, particularly regarding context management in speech recognition.
Apple Inc. v.Poniatowski, Paul et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims of Patent 8,270,578 B2 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board accepted the Petitioner's arguments regarding claim construction and found that prior art references (Wang, Dua, Yong) taught the subject matter through obvious combinations.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB found all 16 challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The decision hinged on the Petitioner successfully demonstrating that prior art (Koebler) disclosed all elements of the claimed invention, while also clarifying claim terms regarding sensor data analysis.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent No. 8,786,133 and jointly request the Board keep the settlement agreement confidential. The motion invokes statutory confidentiality provisions and cites prior Board precedent.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,224,563 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, citing settlement and lack of merit decision.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
InfoExpress defends its antedating evidence in response to Cisco and Fortinet’s Director Review request, arguing the Board’s earlier decision was proper and the request should be denied.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The PTAB denied Cisco and Fortinet's request for Director review of the final written decisions in IPR2024-00539 and four related IPRs, leaving the original decisions intact.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their IPR dispute over patent 11253719, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The motion cites settlement and judicial economy as reasons for termination.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
Daingean Technologies defends its 5G random‑access patent against an IPR petition by AT&T and partners, arguing that the cited Lee1 and Lee2 references do not disclose the claimed power‑control features. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID reached a settlement that led to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted confidentiality treatment for the settlement agreement.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s final decision in IPR2024-00539. They argue the Board improperly allowed the patent owner to incorporate arguments by reference, violating USPTO rules and prejudicing the petitioners.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv jointly request that their settlement agreement be treated as Confidential Business Information in the IPR.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv have jointly moved to terminate their IPR dispute over patent 11,253,719.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light, Inc. challenged Joovv, Inc.'s patent (11253719) in the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies heavily on prior art references including Dijkstra and Norwood to demonstrate obviousness in photobiomodulation therapy systems.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s patent (7,224,563) at the PTAB, arguing that multiple claims are unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board found that discretionary denial was unwarranted, allowing the IPR proceeding to move forward.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO and FORTINET filed an IPR challenging InfoExpress's patent 8051460, arguing claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petition centers on network access control architecture, using Krantz and Herrmann as key prior art references.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
AT&T and other carriers challenged Daingean Technologies' patent (US 10,932,207) in an IPR petition. The challengers argue that the claims related to random access procedures and power control are anticipated or obvious by prior art references Lee1 and Lee2.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light, Inc.'s challenge against Joovv, Inc.'s light therapy patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish unpatentability under § 103 using references Dijkstra and Norwood.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek successfully challenged MOSAID's patent (7224563) in the PTAB, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references like Tam and Huard.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
AT&T Mobility and others successfully petitioned to challenge Daingean Technologies' patent claims related to random access procedures. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over prior art references Lee1 and Lee2 for claims 4, 5, 6, and 8.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable. The patent relates to random access procedures in LTE/5G apparatuses and involved significant claim construction regarding power ramping functions.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
DISH Network challenges the validity of patent 8621539, arguing that its claims are obvious by combining prior art from Hou, Konschak, and Dapper. The petitioner asserts that known techniques in broadband cable networking render the claimed methods predictable improvements.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla challenged iQar Inc.'s patent (7,925,426) in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the claims related to route optimization and power management are obvious. The PTAB found merits compelling and decided to institute the case based on favorable Fintiv factors.
NJOY, LLC et al. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
NJOY challenges JUUL's e-cigarette patent (US 11,606,981) on multiple grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Petition argues that various combinations of prior art references render the claimed features of the vaping device readily apparent. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation and ITC investigations between the parties.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB denied the institution of IPR for DISH Network against Entropic Communications, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground. The dispute centers on whether specific probe packet techniques in coaxial networks are obvious.
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.