US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 268 of 291 · 8,722 total
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding seven claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The decision centered on the combination of prior art references in Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) technology, specifically regarding dopants and encapsulation methods.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T filed a Director Review Request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against ASUS. The petition cites improper weighting of Fintiv factors and failure to consider prior art.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology jointly moved to end IPR 2024‑00963 and asked the PTAB to keep their final settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T and other telecom carriers petition the PTAB Director to review a denied institution of an IPR challenging ASUS’s 5G‑related patent. They argue the panel misread prior art, ignored expert testimony, and abused discretion under § 314(a). The petition seeks reversal and institution of the review.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,701,321 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology entered a settlement that led to the termination of two inter partes review proceedings (IPR2024-00857 and IPR2024-00963). The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and partially protected the settlement documents as confidential.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB Director denied the petitioners’ request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving ASUS patents. The denial leaves the original institution denials in place.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Petitioners, including AT&T and Verizon, successfully petitioned to challenge 19 claims of Asustek Computer Inc.'s patent regarding physical layer procedures for CORESET management. The PTAB found compelling merits based on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). This institution sets the stage for a detailed technical battle over wireless standards implementation.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup SA initiated an Inter Partes Review challenging the validity of Hanshow Technology's '321 patent based on obviousness. The Petitioner asserts that multiple combinations of prior art references render all 21 claims unpatentable in the field of video surveillance and analytics.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition, finding that the preliminary record did not present a compelling challenge to the patent's validity despite multiple grounds of obviousness. The Board relied on a holistic review of the Fintiv factors, ultimately favoring discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision was granted for the petitioner VusionGroup SA against Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.'s patent, covering object detection and video surveillance systems. The Board found that the prior art reference Bedros disclosed or suggested all limitations of Claim 1 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This decision allows the petitioner to proceed with invalidity challenges based on obviousness and anticipation grounds.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00853 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties seek to end the proceeding.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions that allow business‑confidential treatment of settlement documents.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered into a confidential settlement and license agreement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00840 under 35 U.S.C. §317(a). The Board has not yet decided the merits, satisfying the statutory criteria for termination.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
Micron’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on a 3‑D memory patent was denied. The Board’s findings that the petitioner’s proposed modifications were inoperable and lacked motivation were upheld.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
Micron Technology petitions the PTAB Director to review a final written decision that upheld Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND flash patent claims. Micron contends the Board erred on obviousness grounds by demanding bodily incorporation, ignoring reply‑stage evidence, and misapplying anticipation standards. The request seeks reversal or vacatur of the decision.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking Section 317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the public patent file.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over DexCom’s glucose‑monitoring patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
The USPTO denied Micron Technology’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00791 (and the related IPR2024-00911). The order contains no substantive patentability findings.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Juniper Networks filed a petition challenging the validity of Portsmouth Network Corporation's '986 patent, arguing that its method for rapid network reconfiguration is obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining existing prior art related to dummy frames and fault recovery messaging renders the claimed invention unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. initiated an IPR challenging DexCom's '204 patent claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that combining existing prior art references, such as Gawlick and Valdes, would have rendered the remote monitoring features of the patented invention obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed a Petition challenging 24 claims of DexCom's '528 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness. The challenge focuses on the combination of real-time user settable low glucose alarms with predicted non-user settable low glucose alarms in CGM systems.
Uber Technologies, Inc. v.Enovsys, LLC
Uber Technologies filed a Petition challenging the validity of Enovsys's Proximity Alert Patent (6756918) based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that existing prior art, including Layson references and Taylor/Fast teachings, renders the claimed location tracking methods unpatentable. This challenges a key patent in the victim-offender monitoring space.
Uber Technologies, Inc. v.Envosys, LLC
Uber Technologies filed a Petition challenging Envosys's patent 6441752 on grounds of obviousness (103). The petition targets several claims related to proximity alerts and geographic boundary monitoring, arguing that prior art references teach the claimed inventions.
Uber Technologies, Inc. v.Envosys, LLC
Uber Technologies filed a petition challenging Envosys's patent claims related to location tracking and dispatch systems. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art, including vehicle dispatch and victim-offender tracking technologies. Uber contends these grounds are highly likely to prevail in the PTAB proceedings.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
Micron Technology filed a Petition challenging claims of Yangtze Memory Technologies' 3D NAND Flash Memory patent (US 10,937,806). The challenge asserts that the claimed features are obvious under Section 103 in light of prior art from Toyama.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR concerning network reconfiguration protocols, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness (103). The patent relates to methods for rapid link failure recovery in Switching/Routing Protocols (STP).
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against DexCom for patent infringement related to remote patient monitoring and glucose technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, specifically finding that prior art combinations rendered key claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge DexCom's CGM patent (9119528) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over Brauker. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the challenged claims, leading to institution.
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.