US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 250 of 286 · 8,574 total
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International Ltd. failed its IPR challenge against Duvall Espresso's brewing system patent, as the Board found insufficient evidence that the prior art rendered the invention obvious. The institution decision denied the petition, maintaining the validity of the core claims related to infused beverage preparation.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for a petition challenging Patent No. 7,746,798 B2, citing both procedural factors and significant weaknesses in the merits. The denial was influenced by the proximity of an expected trial date in related litigation to the final decision timeline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR petition against Truesight's patent (8898803), citing the advanced stage and proximity of related District Court litigation.
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute IPR against Haptic, Inc.'s patent. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel civil litigation and concerns over system efficiency.
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Haptic, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited advanced progress and investment in parallel civil litigation as the primary reason for denying institution.
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
PreOmics GmbH et al. successfully petitioned for institution in the IPR against The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc., challenging claims related to sensor arrays for protein corona analysis. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to invalidate Mullen Industries' patent (11190633) covering wearable device notifications, leading the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across five grounds using combinations of prior art like Narayanaswami and Kita 514.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) in a dispute involving Samsung and Mullen Industries. The decision relied on the Fintiv factors, finding that procedural concerns outweighed the merits.
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
The PTAB denied a request to vacate a Final Written Decision (FWD) because the Petitioner introduced new arguments regarding obviousness in its reply brief. The Board found that the initial petition lacked sufficient particularity to support the claims' unpatentability.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Ericsson Inc et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Headwater Partners II LLC's patent (9094868), challenging claims 11-15 on obviousness grounds. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that the claimed link quality estimation would have been obvious over Jarvinen and Fox.
Axion Biosystems, Inc. v.Agilent Technologies, Inc.
Axion Biosystems successfully navigated the Institution Decision phase in its IPR against Agilent Technologies, leading to the trial of key claims. The Board declined to deny institution, allowing the dispute over cell monitoring and impedance analysis technology to proceed to litigation.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Google and Samsung's claims against Cerence. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation, which weighed heavily in favor of preventing duplicative proceedings.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, instituting trial on all 10 claims. The grounds centered on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), arguing that specific properties of electrolytic copper foil could be achieved by combining various prior art references.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Google and Samsung against Cerence regarding voice command detection methods. The denial was based on the advanced stage of a parallel district court litigation, making institutional review inefficient.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The Director denied institution of Inter Partes Review in a dispute between Solus Advanced Materials and SK Nexilis, citing the Fintiv holistic assessment.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge brought by Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. against SK nexilis Co., Ltd.'s patent, finding insufficient evidence to support obviousness claims. The Board rejected the petitioner's reliance on hindsight bias when attempting to combine prior art references.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' request for rehearing, upholding the initial decision to deny institution of IPR against SK nexilis regarding surface roughness claims. The Board found insufficient evidence of motivation to combine prior art references.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' IPR challenges against SK nexilis regarding claims covering electrolytic copper foils for secondary batteries. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, particularly rejecting conclusory expert testimony used to bridge prior art gaps.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.'s request for rehearing was denied after the PTAB initially denied institution of IPR against SK nexilis Co., Ltd.'s copper foil patent, upholding the finding that obviousness claims lacked sufficient evidence.
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for any challenged claim. The grounds relied on obviousness (103), utilizing combinations of prior art references including Hubalek and KR’062.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against SK nexilis Co., Ltd. was denied institution by the PTAB, despite a 'close call' on the merits. The denial hinged primarily on procedural factors related to scheduling and parallel litigation.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communication Technologies challenged SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS' RF switch system patent (9148194) at the PTAB, arguing obviousness over prior art references Huang and Seshimo. The Board granted institution because the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-11 based on the Huang reference. This moves the dispute into the trial phase.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Healthier Choices Management Corp.'s electronic cigarette patent (9538788), arguing the claims are obvious in light of prior art.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communication Technologies successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Skyworks Solutions, Inc., asserting that several claims related to RF switches and semiconductor devices are unpatentable. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness (103) over prior art references Huang and Seshimo.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories successfully secured the institution of its IPR against California Institute of Technology's patent, challenging claims based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found that Bio-Rad demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding Claim 1 over Larson.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco Systems successfully argued that multiple claims of Portsmouth Network Corporation's patent were unpatentable over prior art references Dziong and Sathyanath, specifically regarding network routing and bandwidth allocation. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several key claims, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. failed its IPR challenge against a patent owned by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 regarding Magnetic Tunnel Junctions (MTJ). The PTAB denied the petition on obviousness grounds (103), finding that the petitioner could not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Western Digital Technologies against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.Rally AG LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Rally AG LLC's ID cloaking patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence to overcome obviousness challenges based on prior art references Lee, Hardt, and Le Jouan.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies successfully secured institution of its IPR against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 regarding MTJ technology claims. The Board found sufficient evidence to support obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over combinations of prior art, including Bowen and Sunai.
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.