US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 255 of 291 · 8,722 total
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T and other telecom operators seek Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against ASUS’s 5G QoS patent, alleging the panel ignored prior‑art disclosures and expert testimony.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia, together with patent owner Active Wireless Technologies, filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements kept confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate the materials from the public PTAB file.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia settled with Active Wireless Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The settlement agreements were also deemed business‑confidential.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Court decision.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia settled their IPR disputes with Active Wireless Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the three pending reviews and keep the settlement agreements confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The USPTO denied BOE Technology’s request for a Director Review of the institution denial of its challenge to U.S. Patent 7,502,079, keeping the original denial in place.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Petitioners, including AT&T and Verizon, have challenged ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s patent claims regarding 5G QoS flow management. The petition asserts that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining various prior art references. This challenge targets core technical aspects of wireless communication protocols.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia filed a Petition challenging claims related to Narrowband IoT (NB-IoT) Single-Cell Multicast Service (SC-PTM). The petitioners assert that the challenged technology is obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Shin '094 and 3GPP standards.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia filed a Petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,601,566, asserting that its PUCCH configuration claims are obvious over existing LTE and NR prior art. The petition targets multiple claims by combining references such as Kim, Gao, R1-1710555, and Huang.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,502,079 regarding Active-Matrix Liquid Crystal Displays (AMLCD). The petitioner asserts that all three claimed elements are obvious over various combinations of prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This filing initiates a formal PTAB proceeding against the patent owner.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by a consortium of wireless carriers against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc., citing unfavorable findings under the Fintiv discretionary denial standard. The Board found that despite some neutral factors, Petitioner's substantial delay and lack of compelling merits weighed against proceeding with the case.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia successfully petitioned against Active Wireless Technologies' patent (10785764) in a PTAB decision, leading to institution. The Board found a likelihood of prevailing on the Shin obviousness ground over NB-IoT/LTE multicast services claims.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Active Wireless Technologies LLC regarding 5G NR PUCCH design claims. The Board found compelling evidence of unpatentability, despite initial concerns raised by the Patent Owner's arguments.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against the LCD display patent was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient rationale for combining prior art references. The Board determined the obviousness arguments were conclusory and lacked objective support.
NULIDS, LLC v.BlephEx, LLC
NULIDS, LLC and BlephEx, LLC settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding.
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of Autel's IPR against Orange Electronic's TPMS patent, finding the petition presented no new prior art or arguments beyond those already considered in a prior reexamination.
NULIDS, LLC v.BlephEx, LLC
NULIDS challenges BlephEx's patent (11083621) in an IPR petition, arguing that the device for ocular disorder treatment is obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references including Grenon I, Grenon II, Nichamin, Colin, and Shabo to invalidate claims 1-6, 9-18.
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
CUB Elecparts Inc. initiated an IPR challenging key claims of the '064 patent related to Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS). The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious in view of prior art references, primarily Tang and Lemense, which describe similar ID updating systems.
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of obviousness (103). The challenge targeted multiple claims related to Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems using various prior art combinations.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's athletic shoe sole patent via IPR, asserting obviousness based on combinations of prior art references like Won and Norton. The Board decided to institute the proceeding, finding that factors weighed against discretionary denial despite the complexity of the technical arguments.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour filed an IPR challenging the validity of Athalonz's athletic shoe patent (11375768). The petition asserts that various claimed features, including a gradient compression forefoot platform and uniform heel height, are obvious based on combinations of prior art.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour challenges Athalonz's athletic footwear patent (11064760) in an IPR petition, asserting that all 11 claims are obvious over multiple prior art references. The petitioner argues the claimed features were conventional knowledge in the field of athletic positioning footwear.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's '786 patent for athletic/golf footwear sole design via an IPR petition. The petitioner argued that all eight claimed features were obvious based on prior art references including Kim, Dufour, and Rubin. The Board subsequently instituted the proceeding.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's athletic footwear patent (US 11013291) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art including Kim, Dufour, and Rubin. The PTAB has instituted the proceeding, finding merit in the challenger's arguments against discretionary denial.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges the validity of JHU's patent (11,339,219) in an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that all eight claims are anticipated by or obvious over prior art, primarily citing the MSI-H Study Record and various combinations thereof. This petition seeks to invalidate the core claims related to treating MSI-H tumors with pembrolizumab.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11325975) in a Petition, arguing all claims are anticipated by the MSI-H Study Record and rendered obvious by combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that the study record inherently discloses every limitation of the claimed method for treating MSI-H patients with anti-PD-1 antibodies.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11325974) in an IPR, arguing that all claims are unpatentable. Petitioner asserts the MSI-H Study Record anticipates the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and various prior art combinations render them obvious under § 103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (10934356) in an IPR, asserting that all claims are anticipated or obvious. Petitioner relies heavily on the MSI-H Study Record and various prior art references to demonstrate invalidity across multiple grounds. This petition sets up a significant challenge to the scope of PD-1 inhibitor patents for MSI-H cancers.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's patent (8249932) in a PTAB petition, arguing that key claims related to targeted advertising and social networking are obvious. The petitioner asserts that combinations of prior art from Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones render the challenged claims unpatentable under 103.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's targeted advertising patent (8249932) at the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious over numerous prior art references. The petition cites combinations of existing technology in ad serving and network redirection to invalidate the patent.
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.