US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 266 of 286 · 8,574 total
Helena Laboratories Corporation v.Sebia
Helena Laboratories Corporation's IPR challenge against Sebia regarding hemoglobin analysis claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error in the Examiner's rejection, particularly concerning prior art references like Shihabi and Huang.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care challenged DexCom's CGM patents in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art combining Yarger and Love. The Board granted institution after claim construction, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least one claim.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
MediaTek Inc.'s IPR petition against ParkerVision, Inc. was instituted by the PTAB, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The petitioner successfully argued that combining Nevo and Avitabile renders claims 1-20 unpatentable in wireless communication systems.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully secured institution in a PTAB proceeding against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding non-volatile memory technology. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references Lee, Zhao, and Yang.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully secured institution in this IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D NAND memory claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Park et al., despite the Patent Owner's challenges to key claim terms like 'trenches.'
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron Technology's IPR challenge against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash patents, finding insufficient evidence to prove obviousness over the cited prior art (Seo and Choi).
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron Technology's request for rehearing after institution was previously denied on claims of the NAND Flash patent 11,600,342. The Board found that Petitioner failed to provide objective evidence demonstrating how prior art references inherently teach fast charge removal.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims related to 3D-NAND memory operation, leading to the institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Micron would prevail on its challenges regarding anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior art references.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
Micron Technology challenged YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY over its 3D NAND Memory technology in an IPR proceeding. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness based on prior art, moving the case into trial preparation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully challenged Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB institution decision. The Board adopted a narrow construction of 'dummy source structure,' finding that the Petitioner met its burden for obviousness over Tessariol and Park. This paves the way for further litigation against the patent owner.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully challenged Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB Institution Decision regarding obviousness over Kim and Tessariol. The Board adopted the Petitioner's definition of 'surrounding' as 'encircling,' finding a reasonable likelihood that Micron will prevail against the patent.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding claims related to 3D memory devices. The Board found sufficient evidence for unpatentability under both §102 and §103 over prior art references Toyama, Mushiga, and Makala.
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).
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge against Emerging Automotive LLC's vehicle access control patents. The Board found that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Proxense, LLC's patent (10073960). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple obviousness grounds, particularly regarding device authentication and secure memory.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google LLC successfully argued that the challenged claims were obvious over multiple combinations of prior art (Dua, Giobbi ’157, Kotola, Buer). The PTAB instituted the IPR on all 20 challenged claims after rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction arguments. This sets up a significant trial phase regarding wireless security and digital key technology.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google LLC successfully secured institution in the IPR against Proxense, LLC regarding hybrid device technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) across multiple claims. This decision validates Google's position that the challenged patent is anticipated by prior art combinations.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
United Services Automobile Association (USAA) successfully argued that the patent claims related to telematics and driving safety systems were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion, advancing the IPR proceedings against Auto Telematics Ltd.'s '878 patent.
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
New Balance Athletics' IPR challenge against Nike's footwear patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board rejected arguments of anticipation and obviousness, particularly regarding claim scope limitations like 'article of footwear.'
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Maxell's patent 11017815. The Board found that Samsung presented a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims, overcoming prior art challenges based on combinations of references like Horn and Baumgartner.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Proxense, LLC regarding biometric authentication claims. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over Burger and Robinson.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The Director granted review in multiple IPRs involving Texas Instruments and Greenthread, vacating the FWDs. The cases are remanded to allow discovery on privity issues across related proceedings.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Cellspin Soft, Inc.'s patent covering Bluetooth data transfer and content publishing. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The Director vacated institution decisions in the TikTok vs. Cellspin IPRs, denying petitions because TikTok failed to prove it was not controlled by a foreign government at the time of filing.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok and its affiliates successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Cellspin Soft regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over multiple prior art references, including Singh129/Singh906 and Kahn/Bluetooth.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The Director vacated institution decisions in the TikTok v. Cellspin IPRs, denying them because TikTok failed to prove it was not controlled by a foreign government at the time of filing.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Cellspin Soft, Inc., leading to a decision that reasonable likelihood of unpatentability was established for claims 1-10 over Singh129 and Singh906. The Board found that Petitioner adequately demonstrated material error in prior art consideration during prosecution regarding Ground 2.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The Director vacated institution decisions in the TikTok vs. Cellspin IPRs, denying them because TikTok failed to prove it was not controlled by a foreign government at the time of filing.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok Inc.'s challenge to Cellspin Soft's patent was instituted by the PTAB, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable. The Board focused on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) over prior art references including Hiroishi, Kahn, and Bluetooth specifications. This decision sets up trial proceedings to determine if the combination of existing technologies renders the patent claims invalid.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The Director denied TikTok's IPR petitions against Cellspin Soft, citing precedent that bars foreign governments from participating in AIA proceedings. The decision vacated prior institution orders and terminated the review.
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.