US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 250 of 291 · 8,722 total
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas challenges SitePro's patent (11,294,403) under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, arguing that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Kahn, Almadi, and Gutierrez. The PTAB has instituted the case, allowing the merits of the anticipation and obviousness arguments to proceed.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. filed an opening petition challenging SitePro, Inc.'s Patent No. 10,488,871 in the PTAB. The petitioner asserts that the patent is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Kahn and Gutierrez.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. challenged SitePro's patent (11726504) via a Petition, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Cardamone or Kahn under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The petitioner also argues for obviousness based on combining prior art with SCADA under § 103.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group challenges SitePro's patent (9898014) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claims are either anticipated by Kahn or rendered obvious when combining Kahn with Gutierrez.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. filed a petition challenging SitePro, Inc.'s patent (9342078) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art including Almadi, Gutierrez, and SCADA. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are fully disclosed by these references in the field of Industrial Automation.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,175,680 based on anticipation and obviousness over four prior art references (Almadi, Cardamone, Gutierrez, SCADA). The Petitioner argues that these references disclose every limitation of the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or render them obvious under § 103.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,649,909 based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references Cardamone, Almadi, and Abdallah. The petitioner argues that these references disclose every limitation of the challenged claims related to remote fluid handling control systems. This marks the initial challenge phase in a complex Oil and Gas technology dispute.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco Systems challenges InfoExpress's patent (8677450) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner contends that combining Krantz and Herrmann prior art references provides a predictable solution for enhanced network security and access control policy enforcement.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Aptiv Services' IPR challenges against Microchip Technology regarding ESD protection circuits (Patent No. 7564665). The Board found the Petitioner failed to overcome obviousness grounds, rejecting claims based on impermissible hindsight and insufficient explanation of prior art combinations.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. successfully petitioned to challenge Emerging Automotive LLC's patent (9171268) in a PTAB proceeding, leading to an institution decision. The challenges focus on claims related to vehicle profile management and cloud services under grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO and FORTINET successfully petitioned to challenge InfoExpress's network security patents, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on all claims. The Board agreed with the Petitioner that combining Krantz and Herrmann would render the challenged claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB found that independent claim 10 and dependent claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 were anticipated by the prior art reference Xiao. While other combinations failed to meet obviousness standards due to insufficient rationale, the Board adopted a construction requiring a compatibility check during setting determination.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB found all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent unpatentable, adopting broader claim constructions and granting Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 21‑26.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent were unpatentable, adopting the petitioner’s claim constructions and granting Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 21‑26.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ‘307 patent are unpatentable, adopting broader claim constructions for “combined” and “wearable,” and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 15‑28.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all of Rode Microphones’ challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent are unpatentable for obviousness and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 50‑65.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 7,8,11,12,14,15 of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable under §§103 and 102, finding the asserted prior art taught each limitation. The Board also granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend, replacing the cancelled claims with narrower substitute claims 21‑26.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB found all challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent unpatentable for obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’307 patent are unpatentable. Rode Microphones successfully proved obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The Board also granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 15‑28.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones challenges the PTAB’s finding of privity with its subsidiary Lectrosonics, seeking to vacate the institution of an IPR against Zaxcom’s 7,929,902 patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied the Taylor exceptions and violated due‑process rights.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones has filed a Director Review petition asking the PTAB to vacate the institution of an IPR against Zaxcom’s microphone patent, arguing the Board erred in finding privity with its newly‑acquired subsidiary Lectrosonics. The petition contends that parent‑subsidiary relationships do not satisfy the Taylor exceptions used to bar the challenge.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The USPTO denied Rode Microphones' request for director review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,276,207. The institution decisions therefore remain in force.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Zaxcom submitted a corrected response in IPR2025‑00231, fixing a misquoted exhibit reference and asking the Board to remove the earlier filing. No substantive changes were made to the arguments.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE microphones’ request for Director review of the termination of IPR 2025‑00231 was denied. The Board affirmed that Lectrosonics is a privy of RØDE, satisfying the §315(b) time‑bar and correctly applying Taylor exceptions.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics seek Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Zaxcom’s 7,929,902 patent. They argue the Board ignored Guidance, settled expectations, and failed to rule on a motion to terminate, warranting denial of institution.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Zaxcom seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision for its 2019 microphone patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary considerations and ignored Guidance. The request targets claims 17‑19, 21‑23, 33‑34, 59‑60, and 66.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’307 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to replace the cancelled claims with narrower substitute claims.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones files a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s finding of privity with its newly‑acquired subsidiary Lectrosonics, arguing the Board misapplied the Taylor exceptions and violated due‑process. The petition seeks vacatur of the institution and dismissal of the IPR against Zaxcom’s ’902 patent.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB found all of Rode Microphones’ challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with new claims 50‑65.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Zaxcom seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 2010 microphone patent. The Patent Owner argues the Board misapplied discretionary considerations and Fintiv factors, ignoring settled expectations and the Director’s Guidance.
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.