US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 274 of 291 · 8,722 total
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
The PTAB instituted the IPR petition challenging key claims of a patent related to vasoconstriction agents for eye redness. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, despite arguments from the Patent Owner regarding prior art limitations and adverse events.
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).
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
Ceva Santé Animale S.A. filed an IPR challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,806,124, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on multiple combinations of prior art references (Gershman, Pierre, Yavnai, Tao) related to poultry sexing and image analysis.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.Identitii Limited
JPMorgan Chase Bank challenges Identitii Limited's patent (10984413) on grounds of obviousness and lack of written description/enablement. The Petitioner argues the claims are predictable combinations of prior art references, specifically Kennedy and Kurani-816.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.Identitii Limited
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. filed a petition challenging Identitii Limited's patent (10984413), arguing that the claims are obvious under Section 103. The petitioner contends that combining Smith and Seger renders nearly all claimed features predictable for POSITA in financial technology.
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR challenge against Targan, Inc.'s patent (10806124), finding that the Petitioner presented new and non-cumulative prior art combinations. The case involves poultry production technology, with Ceva Sante Animal S.A. as the petitioner.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.Identitii Limited
The PTAB denied JPMorgan Chase Bank's IPR against Identitii Limited, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Kennedy and Kurani-816.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.Identitii Limited
The PTAB denied JPMorgan Chase's request to institute IPR against Identitii Limited's patent, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
The PTAB found that claims 1-15 of the patent are unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board's construction of 'unrestrained chick' was crucial, defining it as a chick free to open its wings on the moving platform.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast challenges the PTAB’s finding that its TV channel‑selection patent is unpatentable, filing a Director Review Request alleging the Board ignored prior Office findings on the same technology. The Patent Owner seeks reversal of the decision under the Director’s 2025 memorandum.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The Board denied Comcast’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in the IPR concerning Entropic Communications’ patent 11,399,206. The denial applies to three related IPRs filed by the same parties.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00435 concerning patent 11,381,866. The order also applies to two related IPRs.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that claims 1‑18 of Entropic’s 8,792,008 patent are unpatentable was denied. The Board found the petition provided a sufficient reasoned basis and the patent owner waived unraised arguments.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Entropic Communications seeks Director review of an IPR where the PTAB declared all 18 claims of its cable‑broadband patent unpatentable. The owner alleges procedural abuse, invented arguments, and inconsistent rulings with a related IPR. It requests reversal and termination of the proceeding.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast rejects Entropic Communications' request to file new exhibits in IPR2024-00435, arguing the request is untimely after final decisions.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast argues that Entropic’s request for Director Review of the IPR’s Final Written Decision should be denied because the Patent Owner failed to provide relevant evidence and raised no valid procedural or legal grounds.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast opposes Entropic Communications' request to submit new exhibits after PTAB final decisions, arguing the request is untimely and unsupported. The petition seeks denial of the exhibit submission.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast submits an authorized response urging denial of Entropic’s request for Director Review of the IPR’s Final Written Decision, asserting no abuse of discretion and that the Board’s explanation of the Zhang reference satisfies the required memorandum.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Entropic Communications requests Director review of a PTAB decision that found its television channel‑selection patent unpatentable. The owner argues the Board ignored prior examiner and reexamination findings, violating a recent Director memorandum.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00432 (and related IPRs), leaving the Board's original decision in place.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast successfully opposed Entropic’s Director Review request, arguing the Board’s decision already met procedural requirements and that Entropic’s late arguments were waived. The request was denied.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a decision that found Entropic Communications’ channel‑selection patent invalid. The Patent Owner argues the Board ignored earlier reexamination findings on the same Zhang reference, violating the Director’s memorandum.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast opposes Entropic Communications' request to file new exhibits after PTAB final decisions in three IPRs, arguing the request is untimely and unsupported. The board has been asked to deny the request.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Entropic Communications has requested Director Review of the IPR involving Comcast’s challenge to patent 11,381,866. Comcast may file a concise, evidence‑free response within five business days, and no additional briefing is permitted.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The USPTO Director denied Comcast's request for a Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00441 concerning Entropic Communications' patent 8,792,008.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the '738 patent owned by Immersion Corporation, focusing on haptic feedback systems. The petitioner argues that various prior art references, including Pratt and Ku, anticipate or render the challenged claims obvious under 102 and 103. This is a foundational challenge to the patent's validity in consumer electronics technology.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment and Sony Group Corporation filed a Petition challenging 13 claims of Resonant Systems' U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830. The challenge centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), arguing that the claimed linear vibration actuators are predictable combinations of prior art in haptics and control systems.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,860,337 covering vibration generation/haptics technology. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on combinations of prior art references like Houston and Goldenberg.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,369,081 regarding linear vibration actuators used in haptics/feedback devices. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining multiple prior art references. This is an early-stage challenge setting the stage for a detailed examination of the patent's validity.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's '008 patent claims, arguing they are obvious in light of prior art references like Renken and Cholas. The PTAB institution decision recognized the compelling unpatentability challenges presented by Comcast regarding signal monitoring technology.
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.