US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 249 of 291 · 8,722 total
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics and Natera have filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks limited disclosure and asserts no filing fee is due.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics and Natera have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,519,035 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided on institution.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation have jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The request seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit disclosure to parties with good cause.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo (via IQE PLC) petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 24 claims of Cornell’s ’360 epitaxial‑growth patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references under §103. The petition stresses strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,250,360 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues that termination aligns with public policy favoring settlements.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Court decision.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,250,360, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review by joint motion. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC v.Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC et al.
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC instituted an IPR against Flex-Chem Holding Company's patent (9944843) concerning Well Stimulation/Acidizing technology. The petition asserts that the claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 based on prior art references, including Frenier and Reyes.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics challenges Natera's patent covering cell-free DNA analysis methods in an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that the claimed method is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references, including Forshew and Pieprzyk/May.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo challenges 24 claims of a semiconductor fabrication patent (7250360) in an IPR petition, asserting that the claimed epitaxial growth and nucleation processes are obvious. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references including Urashima, Guo, Nagata, Keiper, and Manabe to demonstrate lack of novelty.
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC v.Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Pharaoh Energy Services' petition to institute IPR proceedings against Flex-Chem for patent 9944843, citing a lack of compelling merits. The Board found that the cumulative weight of Fintiv factors and insufficient technical basis in the petitioner’s evidence led to the denial.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,756,680 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,649,909, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group and SitePro settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,726,504 B2 before the IPR was instituted, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,898,014, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
Court decision.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,294,403 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that allowed InfoExpress’s network‑security patent to survive. They argue the Board improperly accepted arguments incorporated by reference, violating USPTO rules.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 9,342,078. They jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding without a final written decision.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,649,909. They have filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317, citing public‑policy support for settlement.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of America and SitePro settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,342,078 before trial. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board granted the termination, treating the settlement as confidential.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The IPR against SitePro’s patent 11,294,403 was terminated after the parties settled the dispute, including related district‑court litigation, before any trial was instituted.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 11,762,504, and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,488,871 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board granted the termination and confidentiality request.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro settled their PTAB dispute over Patent 11,175,680 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, which the Board granted, ending the proceeding before trial.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
Court decision.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
InfoExpress defends its antedating evidence against Cisco and Fortinet’s Director Review request, arguing the Board already considered all issues and that the petitioners forfeited new arguments. The Board’s prior finding that none of the references are prior art stands.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The PTAB denied the Director’s review of final written decisions in multiple IPRs, including Cisco’s challenge to InfoExpress’s patent 8,677,450 on network traffic management.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology Inc.
Aptiv challenges Microchip's '665 patent on grounds of obviousness (103) related to ESD protection circuits. The challenger argues that the claimed circuit, which uses pad capacitance for energy storage, is taught or rendered obvious by prior art references like Verhaege and Miller. This initial petition sets the stage for a detailed technical battle over semiconductor device design practices.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims related to user profile and settings transfer systems, arguing that prior art references anticipate or render them obvious. The petition was instituted by the Board, indicating strong initial grounds for challenge.
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.