US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 244 of 286 · 8,574 total
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
The Director denied the institution of an IPR for Midas Green Technologies against Green Revolution Cooling, citing Fintiv factors and concerns over parallel proceedings.
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Midas Green Technologies, LLC regarding claims covering appliance immersion cooling systems. The Board found that the petitioner met the burden of proof for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art references Best-2008 and Osada.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin International successfully navigated the initial stages of its IPR challenge against Cardiacsense LTD's '998 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several grounds. The Board found that certain claims were not entitled to an earlier effective filing date due to insufficient written description support for a compass feature in prior applications.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Curio Bioscience's IPR against Prognosys/10X Genomics, finding no grounds for invalidity based on obviousness (Cantor/Armani) or anticipation (Frisen). The Board concluded that the prior art did not teach the necessary combination elements of spatially encoded biological assays.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against DeepSig Inc.'s radio communication patent (11,777,540) filed by Digital Global Systems, citing insufficient evidence that the claims were obvious over prior art.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Curio Bioscience's IPR challenge against Prognosys and 10X Genomics, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (102), obviousness (103), or written description (112). The Board upheld the validity of the challenged claims in spatial omics/assay systems technology.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully challenged several claims in the NAND Flash patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds. The Board found that modifying TAC shapes and implementing dummy channels were simple advancements supported by prior art.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology initiated an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash memory claims, challenging the patent on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several key claims over prior art (Dong), leading to the institution of the proceeding.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge a key claim in Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent. The Board granted institution based on obviousness over prior art references like Kim and Nam, advancing the dispute into an active IPR phase.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against WSOU Investments regarding network protection claims (8982691). The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, specifically finding that prior art references inherently disclose key claim limitations.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
The Director denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review in a Cisco Systems case, vacating the initial decision. The denial was based on procedural efficiency due to the proximity of a parallel district court trial.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute IPR against Entropic Communications regarding a wideband receiver patent. The denial was based on the existence of another parallel petition covering the same claims.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's second IPR petition against Entropic's wideband receiver patent (11785275), citing the existence of a first, already-instituted parallel proceeding.
Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Samsung Bioepis sought to invalidate numerous claims of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals' ophthalmic formulations using grounds of obviousness (103). The PTAB denied institution based on a holistic Fintiv analysis, citing significant overlap with ongoing district court and MDL proceedings.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-00180, allowing Comcast to challenge Entropic's wideband receiver patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on the petitioner's arguments against anticipation and obviousness.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge by Innoscience America against Infineon Technologies' patent covering semiconductor devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of anticipation for several claims over the prior art reference Usui, while also finding merit in the obviousness arguments.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against DH International Ltd., finding insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments, specifically criticizing the Petitioner's use of hindsight in mapping prior art limitations onto the claimed electronic device.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent, leading the PTAB to institute trial on all 28 claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds using prior art references KR996, Bares, and Beltrami.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
Apple successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against DH International Ltd's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over Suga in view of Gorsuch. The Board preliminarily construed key terms like 'invariable activation command,' finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the challenged claims.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of its IPR against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent (9321386). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim would be unpatentable based on prior art combinations.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB not to issue a discretionary denial of its IPR petition against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent. The Board found that Kubota demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground, allowing the case to proceed to full examination.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully navigated the institution decision process against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent, leading to a trial on key claims. The Board found that the prior art was sufficiently distinct from previous PTO examinations and granted review under § 325(d).
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's '386 patent, asserting grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The Board found that the petitioner's arguments regarding prior art combinations were persuasive enough to overcome the Patent Owner's request for discretionary denial.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for ResMed Corp.'s IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board overcame arguments regarding parallel District Court litigation by applying the Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung Electronics' request to institute an IPR against SiOnyx, LLC's patent 11,721,714 B2. The Board relied on the Fintiv factors, concluding that the existing parallel ITC and District Court litigation favored denying institution.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. successfully petitioned for institution of its IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.'s patent covering CPAP systems. The Board declined discretionary denial, finding that the petitioner adequately demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both 102 and 103 grounds.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.'s patent (No. 11690512). The Board found that ResMed demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Ground 1, allowing the challenge to proceed despite neutral merits.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care challenges Inari Medical's hemostasis valve patents under grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board construed the key term 'filament' to require flexibility, which influenced its initial assessment of the claims. Institution was granted, setting the stage for a full trial on infringement and validity.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB denied ResMed Corp.'s Inter Partes Review petition against Cleveland Medical Devices' patent, citing prior filings and concerns over 'road-mapping'.
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands' IPR petition against CamelBak Products regarding mouthpiece and cap assemblies was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that petitioner failed to meet the statutory threshold for institution, specifically rejecting obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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.