US PTAB Patent Cases
2,587 decisions indexed
Page 26 of 87 · 2,587 total
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2024-00437, meaning the challenger's claims against Comcast were not moved forward.
Samsara, Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR proceeding (IPR2026-00034) involving Samsara, Inc. and Motive Technologies, Inc., finding the petitioner failed to meet the standard for likelihood of prevailing.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
The PTAB found numerous claims of U.S. Patent No. 11329973 unpatentable based on obviousness (103). The Board determined that the prior art, particularly Oborne, discloses key limitations related to token generation and issuing agency verification in digital credential systems. Claims 1, 3–8, and 10–16 were found invalid, while claims 2, 9, and 17 survived.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The PTAB denied the Petitioner's request for rehearing regarding an institution decision. The Board upheld its claim construction of a micro-mirror array patent, finding that each set of mirrors must have a differing cone angle offset.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The Director denied an Inter Partes Review (IPR) for Headwater Research, vacating a prior institution decision after reviewing the merits and procedural factors.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00049, allowing Google LLC et al. to challenge HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC's patent 9179359 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied the request to institute Inter Partes Review (IPR) regarding patent 9179359 between Samsung and Headwater Research.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. successfully instituted the IPR against Lumenco, LLC regarding security device patents related to anti-counterfeiting micro mirrors. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims over combinations of prior art references (Fuhse847 and Rich).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung challenged Headwater's patent (9179359) in an IPR proceeding focused on network traffic control claims. The PTAB granted institution, allowing Samsung to proceed with its § 103 obviousness challenge against Claim 26 using Shell and Cole prior art.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' IPR against STA Group, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenges over prior art Choksi.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted institution for several Inter Partes Review proceedings after petitioners demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their challenges. Other cases were denied based on discretionary or merits reviews.
VIVITRO LABS INC. v.BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC
VIVITRO LABS INC. successfully achieved institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Patent No. 9237935, challenging claims related to prosthetic heart valve testing systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success over Dynatek regarding certain limitations, despite preliminary rejections on other grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Kannuu Pty. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00071, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Kannuu's patent 11573939.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against a vaporizing smoking article patent, citing the existence and advanced stage of a parallel ITC investigation.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc et al. v.The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania et al.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision upholding the validity of claim 8 in this gene therapy IPR. The decision found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient motivation or reasonable expectation of success to combine prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Kannuu Pty. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00072, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Kannuu's patent 11200252.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Director granted review of an institution decision in a vaping patent case, vacating the original ruling and sending it back to the Board. The parties must now address discretionary denial under Fintiv factors considering a parallel ITC proceeding.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. successfully challenged RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc.'s patent on electrically heated smoking articles. The PTAB instituted the IPR after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Morgan and Takeuchi.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.General Access Solutions, Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 28 and 29 unpatentable over Vornefeld and Atsuta under 103. The Board concluded that combining the prior art references was an obvious design choice to reduce system complexity in fixed wireless access networks.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
BMW of North America successfully challenged Foras Technologies Limited's patent via IPR, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on all claims. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on multiple obviousness grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent 9245826. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. This decision sets the stage for a full trial regarding semiconductor device technology.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully pushed through the institution phase of its IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC regarding semiconductor fabrication technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung challenged two claims of Advanced Coding Technologies' video coding patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, leading to institution of the IPR.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Dell Technologies Inc., finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over prior art references like Lane and Fujinawa. The Board determined the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on any ground, upholding the patent's validity.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson and Nokia's IPR petition against XR Communications LLC was denied by the PTAB, failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found that the petitioner did not persuasively show that prior art constituted 'pre-equalization.'
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent 9147609. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on technical arguments showing prior art (Cooney) discloses the claimed tapered hollow center in semiconductor vias.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Amazon's IPR2026-00088 while denying it for related PGR and IPR proceedings.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
AT&T Mobility and others successfully petitioned to challenge Daingean Technologies' patent claims related to random access procedures. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over prior art references Lee1 and Lee2 for claims 4, 5, 6, and 8.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
The PTAB granted institution for a petition challenging 23 claims related to container assembly mechanisms, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one ground. The Board found that the combination of multiple prior art references rendered the patent obvious, despite challenges from the Patent Owner regarding prior art consideration and lack of rationale.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned the PTAB against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent, leading to an institution decision. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of anticipation for claim 1 based on Okashita prior art and determined that combining structures would render other claims obvious.
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.