US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 244 of 291 · 8,722 total
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,478,030 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung challenges Maxell’s touch‑screen registration patent, defending the PTAB’s claim construction and obviousness findings while urging the Director to deny the review request as untimely.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its touchscreen‑gesture patent after Samsung’s challenge. The owner contends the Board misapplied the Advanced Bionics framework under §325(d), improperly shifting burdens and ignoring prior reexamination findings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks director review of a PTAB final written decision that found all challenged claims of its fingerprint‑registration patent unpatentable. The patent owner argues the Board’s claim construction and obviousness analysis are erroneous and that the IPR should never have been instituted under §325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the cited prior art was already considered in reexamination and that no material examiner error exists. The response also cites discretionary denial factors under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00233 concerning Patent 8,886,954. The Board found no merit to overturn the prior ruling.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory and regulatory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell has filed a Director Review request seeking to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s fingerprint‑recognition patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,362,480, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,478,030 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board is asked to end the proceeding.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,709,364 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before any merits were decided. The settlement agreement was also designated as confidential business information.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs involving Maxell patents, including patent 8,982,086. The denial leaves the PTAB's original rulings unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00828 was denied by the USPTO, leaving the original institution ruling in place.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited has filed an IPR petition challenging Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s '030 Patent, asserting that the claims are invalid due to anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the patent merely combines well-known configurations of standard vacuum cleaner components using prior art references like Butler, Peter/Neroni, and Lehmann.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Google LLC has filed an opening petition challenging nine claims of a wearable device patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge asserts that key features, including GPS and biometric authentication, were already known in prior art by 2015.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft Corporation filed a Petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954 held by Proxense, LLC. The core argument is that the patent's claims are obvious over various prior art references, including Burger and Robinson.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care challenges DexCom's CGM patent (10709364) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,275,717 ('Gross'). The petitioner argues Gross discloses the core concept of using electrochemical sensors and calibration methods to correct for sensor sensitivity differences.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung filed an IPR petition against Maxell's patent covering touchscreen/fingerprint authentication technology, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that various combinations of prior art references (Rogers, Rosenberg, Miyazawa, Rekimoto) render the challenged claims unpatentable.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology filed a Petition to institute IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D NAND Flash Memory claims, arguing the patents are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition targets multiple claims based on combinations of prior art references (Seo, Choi, Nam, Izumi).
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft Corporation filed an IPR challenging 16 claims of Proxense, LLC's patent related to biometric authentication for financial transactions. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references like Burger and Robinson. This marks a key procedural step in the ongoing dispute between the parties.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial against Omachron Intellectual Property regarding patent 10478030, which covers surface cleaning apparatus. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness across multiple claims (1-13) based on prior art references including Peter, Neroni, and Butler.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s IPR challenge against DexCom's glucose monitoring patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness grounds over prior art reference Gross, despite acknowledging examination complexity. This decision advances Abbott's efforts to invalidate key claims in the medical device space.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB that its biometric authentication claims were not obvious over prior art, leading to the institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung Electronics challenged Maxell's touch interface security patent (8982086), arguing obviousness over prior art including Rogers and Rosenberg. The PTAB found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims, leading to the institution of the IPR and granting trial on specific claims.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron Technology's IPR challenge against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash patents, finding insufficient evidence to prove obviousness over the cited prior art (Seo and Choi).
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron Technology's request for rehearing after institution was previously denied on claims of the NAND Flash patent 11,600,342. The Board found that Petitioner failed to provide objective evidence demonstrating how prior art references inherently teach fast charge removal.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 29 challenged claims unpatentable over the prior art. The Board found that Burger teaches limitations of Claim 1 across various transaction types, and combining Burger with Robinson or Orsini renders dependent claims obvious.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious (103), primarily based on the combination of Rogers and Rosenberg. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's attempt to narrow claim language regarding 'registering modes,' holding that they are input modes within a single operating mode.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture challenges Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s 11,707,033 corn plant patent, arguing it is an obvious copy of earlier varieties. The petition seeks Director review to correct the Board’s alleged legal error.
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.