US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 252 of 291 · 8,722 total
Embody, Inc. et al. v.LifeNet Health
Embody and Zimmer Biomet have filed an IPR seeking cancellation of all 12 claims of LifeNet Health’s 2018 scaffold patent, arguing anticipation by earlier academic publications and obviousness. The petition emphasizes strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 11 claims of Zaxcom’s ’207 patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier PTAB decisions.
Embody, Inc. et al. v.LifeNet Health
Embody, Inc. challenged LifeNet Health's tissue engineering patent (11318227) based on anticipation and obviousness. The PTAB instituted trial on all eight claims after finding merit in the petitioner’s arguments regarding fiber alignment and FFT analysis.
Embody, Inc. et al. v.LifeNet Health
Embody and Zimmer Biomet successfully secured institution in this IPR against LifeNet Health's '223 patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims related to collagen scaffolds with specific FFT analysis characteristics are unpatentable over prior art references like Huang2 and Lee.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB Institute Decision granted trial for Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics against Zaxcom regarding wireless audio recording systems. The Board found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, despite procedural hurdles related to parallel district court litigation.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of the IPR against Zaxcom's '902 patent for wireless multi-track audio systems, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board conducted preliminary claim constructions for key terms like 'wearable' and 'master timecode.'
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics successfully petitioned for IPR institution against Zaxcom's audio recording patents, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that the combination of Strub and Woo renders the claimed synchronization methods obvious under § 103.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response to TCL's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,375,341, arguing that the petitioner’s obviousness ground based on the Acharya reference fails to disclose key claim elements and that discretionary factors favor denying institution.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks denial of TCL’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,650,780, arguing the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success, fails statutory particularity, and repeats arguments already considered by the USPTO.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for Nike’s shoe‑upper patent, arguing the Board misapplied §325(d) to foreign‑language references and ignored prior PTAB findings. The request highlights issues with unintelligible translations and contradictory precedent.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
Aardevo North America petitions the PTAB Director to review the Board’s denial to institute an IPR on Agventure’s hybrid seed potato breeding patent. The petitioner contends the Board ignored printed‑publication anticipations, dismissed secondary‑consideration evidence, and misapplied the nexus requirement.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to vacate the institution of IPR2025‑00120, arguing that the Board misapplied the Fintiv factors and ignored the overlap with a parallel district‑court case. The petition emphasizes the imminent trial date and the limited benefit of the petitioner’s Sotera stipulation.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a sur‑reply urging the PTAB to deny TCL's IPR petition. The owner argues the petition repeats previously presented art, shows no material error, and presents unsupported claim‑construction arguments. The board is asked to reject institution of the review.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s sur‑reply argues TCL’s IPR petition re‑uses prior art, shows no material error, and fails claim‑construction arguments, urging the PTAB to deny institution.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers petitions the PTAB to invalidate Nike's 8,266,749 footwear knitting patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art knitting references. The petition seeks cancellation of 19 claims.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Nike's footwear knitting patent survived Skechers' IPR challenge. The Board found no unpatentable claims after rejecting the obviousness arguments based on Reed and Nishida references.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell opposes TCL's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,219,020, arguing the prior art does not teach key claim limitations and that discretionary factors favor denying institution.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
Petitioner Aardevo North America filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00136 concerning patent 11140841 owned by Agventure B.V. The Board has invited the patent owner to submit a brief, five‑page response limited to the issues raised.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a sur‑reply urging the PTAB to deny TCL Electronics' IPR, arguing the petitioner's single ground is cumulative, lacks material error, and fails claim‑construction analysis. The owner contends the Board should reject institution.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Nike successfully defended its footwear patent against Skechers’ request for Director Review of a denied IPR institution. The Board affirmed the denial under §325(d), finding Skechers’ arguments unpersuasive.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
The PTAB denied Aardevo North America’s request for director review of its petition to institute an IPR against Agventure’s potato‑breeding patent. The Board held that the petitioner’s reliance on physical products violated statutory limits and that it failed to rebut secondary considerations of non‑obviousness.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
The PTAB denied Aardevo North America's request for Director Review of the earlier decision denying institution of IPR2025-00136 covering patent 11,140,841. The petition was dismissed without further action.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
Aardevo North America challenges Agventure's 2021 potato hybrid seed patent, asserting that all ten claims are anticipated or obvious based on decades of prior art. The petition lists nine grounds covering anticipation and obviousness over publications dating back to 1971. No secondary considerations are offered.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Proxense’s ’289 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
TCL has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Maxell’s U.S. Pat. 10,219,020, seeking to invalidate claims covering a display apparatus controlled by a mobile terminal. The petition relies on Bennett and Nashida prior‑art references combined with POSITA knowledge to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nike’s ’484 footwear patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art flat‑knitting references. The petition argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
TCL Electronics has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Maxell’s U.S. Patent 10,650,780 covering a display apparatus that uses USB and wireless LAN. The petition relies on the Lawther prior‑art reference to argue obviousness of claims 1‑11, 13, and 15‑20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers has filed an IPR petition challenging Nike’s U.S. Patent 8,266,749 covering knitted textile uppers for footwear, asserting that all 21 claims are anticipated or obvious over prior‑art references Orei, McDonald, Nishida and Guenther.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
TCL Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Maxell’s 10,375,341 patent covering a multi‑user video display system, asserting that all four claims are obvious over the Acharya prior‑art publication.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Court decision.
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.