US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 267 of 291 · 8,722 total
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Runergy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Trina Solar’s 009 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering TOPCon solar cell structures.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision granted the petitioner a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all challenged claims related to solar cell technology. The grounds for obviousness centered on combining prior art references like Jin and Feldmann to achieve predictable improvements in TOPCon structure efficiency.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all 17 challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board found specific combinations of prior art, notably Chang and Jin, rendered the claimed solar cell structures obvious.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
EMKinetics challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that invalidated 13 claims of U.S. Patent 11,224,742, arguing the Board relied on unsupported presumptions of public accessibility and improperly admitted new evidence as rebuttal. The Patent Owner seeks Director Review to vacate the decision.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical’s IPR resulted in claims 1‑13 of U.S. Patent 11,224,742 being found unpatentable. EMKinetics sought Director Review, re‑asserting printed‑publication arguments, but the Board denied the request, upholding its decision.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical has filed an IPR petition challenging EMKinetics' U.S. Patent 11,224,742 covering non‑invasive posterior tibial nerve stimulation for overactive bladder. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Svihra, Amarenco, Mann and Ponsford and seeks institution of the trial.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical successfully secured the institution of its IPR against EMKinetics, challenging claims 1-13 based on obviousness over combinations of prior art. The Board found that Petitioner adequately supported unpatentability by demonstrating skilled artisans could make the claimed modifications to existing nerve stimulation methods.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The PTAB found all 13 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103. The Board concluded that the claimed nerve stimulation therapy was obvious over combinations of prior art, specifically citing modifications to Svihra and Amarenco using Mann and Ponsford. This decision confirms the lack of inventive step for the technology described in the patent.
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. filed a motion to withdraw its IPR petition against U.S. Patent 8,314,481. The petition is being withdrawn, ending the proceeding.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
B & D Technologies defends its lawn‑mower cab patent by asserting that the “rear wall” term means the interior rear wall and that the petitioner’s prior‑art references are not novel, seeking a discretionary denial of the IPR.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries and B & D Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR 2024‑01150 after reaching a settlement, citing 35 U.S.C. §317(a). The Board has not yet decided the merits, and related district‑court litigation was dismissed.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Pictiva Displays has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s Institution Decision in an IPR against Samsung Display. The request argues that the Board improperly relied on a now‑rescinded Guidance Memo and over‑emphasized a Sand Revolution stipulation, while under‑considering the imminent district‑court trial.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries and B&D Technologies settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,632,815 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--
Reolink Digital Technology withdrew its petition to challenge KT Imaging's U.S. Patent No. 8,314,481, ending the inter partes review before any substantive proceedings began.
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--
Reolink Digital Technology filed a motion to withdraw its petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,004,602. The patent owner, KT Imaging, did not oppose, and the Board was asked to terminate the proceeding at its early stage.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries and B&D Technologies jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations during an IPR.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display requests Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found Pictiva’s OLED claim unpatentable, arguing the Board ignored a jury verdict that upheld the claim and presented inconsistent claim‑construction arguments.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display argues that the Board’s obviousness findings for Pictiva’s OLED patent are sound and that no claim‑construction inconsistency exists, seeking denial of Pictiva’s Director review request.
PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v.National Nail, Corp.
PrimeSource Building Products and National Nail settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,378,218 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display has been given five business days to respond to Pictiva's Director Review request in IPR2024-01095, with a strict 15‑page limit and no new evidence allowed.
PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v.National Nail, Corp.
Court decision.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
Catalyst OrthoScience seeks a PTAB post‑grant review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness of the term “central channel.” The petition also asserts that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging KT IMAGING US, LLC's patent (8004602) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims related to integrated lens modules and image sensor structures are anticipated by combinations of prior art references like Imaoka/Seo and Ma/Wood.
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--
Reolink Digital challenges KT Imaging's '481 image sensor patent in IPR, arguing the claims are anticipated by Hsu and Chen, or obvious over Chou and Hsu.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent 10,632,815 regarding air-conditioned lawn mower cabs. The petition asserts obviousness based on combining prior art references like Toro Video and Judice to show that repositioning the A/C unit was a predictable design improvement.
PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v.National Nail, Corp.
PrimeSource Building Products filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,378,218 owned by National Nail, Corp. The Petitioner asserts that the claim is unpatentable under both 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness).
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display challenges 19 claims of Pictiva Displays' OLED patent (11828425) based on anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103). The petitioner argues that key features, such as specialized doping and flexible encapsulation, were already disclosed in prior art references.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc.'s Post-Grant Review petition against Shoulder Innovations, Inc. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a 'compelling merits' showing for either obviousness (103) or indefiniteness (112).
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s patent, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board focused on Ground IX, finding a reasonable likelihood that Claim 9 is unpatentable over Suzuki and Caldwell regarding OLED technology combined with touch sensing functionality.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The Board found several claims of the patent unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully argued that combining known OLED elements, such as specific dopants or encapsulation layers, would have been routine and predictable to a skilled artisan.
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.