US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 277 of 291 · 8,722 total
Cox Communications, Inc. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Cox Communications' IPR challenge against Entropic Communications regarding cable modem architecture claims 18 and 19 was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to meet the legal standard for institution, specifically failing to demonstrate obviousness over various prior art combinations.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC successfully petitioned for institution against The Noco Company's patent covering portable jump starter apparatuses. The Board found that the prior art presented in the petition was not substantially the same as what was before the Office during prosecution, satisfying the Advanced Bionics framework. This allows the case to proceed to substantive review on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Cox Communications, Inc. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Cox Communications' IPR challenge against Entropic Communications regarding network monitoring technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness over various prior art references.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft Corporation successfully petitioned for IPR against Proxense, LLC's patent (8646042) based on obviousness grounds. The Board granted institution after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple combinations of prior art references.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge against Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation's patent covering intra-oral scanning and 3D modeling. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness over combinations of Zhang and Babayoff.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenging U.S. Patent 10,076,391 B2. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims related to bite registration methods.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Entropic Communications, LLC regarding claims in patent 8223775. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over various prior art combinations, including Rabenko and Kim, particularly concerning modular hardware upgrades.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast Cable Communications' IPR challenge against Entropic Communications' patent covering BCN modulation/bit-loading. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically rejecting the combination of prior art references as obvious.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications lost its IPR challenge against Entropic Communications, LLC regarding claims related to cable network service group management. The PTAB denied the petition, finding insufficient evidence that the claimed features were obvious in light of prior art references.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied institution for Comcast's IPR against Entropic, finding insufficient evidence that prior art references (Saey and Gross) disclosed or suggested the claimed composite SNR-related metric. This decision reinforces the burden on petitioners to demonstrate specific support for key limitations in complex technical claims.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully argued that multiple claims in the patent were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to an institution decision by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertions of obviousness across various combinations of prior art references.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully secured institution in its IPR challenge against the '690 patent, arguing that various prior art references anticipate or render obvious claims related to channel assessment probes. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for certain claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to the scheduling of trial.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Entropic Communications regarding broadband network technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing that the patent claims would be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable over the combination of Giobbi ’1573, Giobbi ’1394, and Dua. The Board successfully rejected arguments regarding means-plus-function interpretation, finding key terms like 'PDK' and 'RDC' conveyed sufficient definite structure. This decision represents a significant win for the Petitioner in this IPR proceeding.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found all seven challenged claims of the portable jump starter apparatus unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board successfully applied two distinct combinations of prior art references (Richardson/Zhao and Yu/Paparrizos) to reject the claims.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board concluded that the prior art references, particularly Rabenko and Gaspar, rendered the claimed cable modem architecture obvious.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB found that the claims were unpatentable over prior art combinations, specifically rejecting grounds based on Renken's architecture and Aggarwal's limitations. The Board concluded that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Kamieniecki and Konstantinos for multi-channel functionality.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB found that several claims of the patent were unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). Key findings included that Claim 1 was anticipated by IEEE-802.16, and specific combinations of prior art rendered other claims obvious.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1, 3, and 4 of the patent obvious over combinations of Afshary and Mirfakhraei. Claim 2 was not found obvious. The Board adopted Petitioner's claim construction for means-plus-function limitations, defining structures as processors or specific signal processing components.
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
Tesla challenges Graphite Charging Company's patent (8,291,243) in an IPR proceeding, arguing the claims are invalid. The petition asserts grounds of obviousness over prior art references Wang, AESO Report, and Cooley.
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
Tesla successfully navigated the PTAB's discretionary denial hurdles, leading to the institution of its IPR challenge against Graphite Charging Company LLC. The Board found that Tesla demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Wang and Cooley.
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the claims were not unpatentable by either anticipation (Cooley) or obviousness (Wang/AESO Report). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's claim construction of 'current' as referring to the present, rejecting the petitioner's interpretation.
Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Formycon secured an institution of IPR against Regeneron's VEGF‑antagonist formulation patent (10,464,992), covering claims 1‑18, after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco and Brazos Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,441,721, a fiber‑Raman amplifier invention, and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and statutory authority for termination.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco and WSOU Investments settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,441,721 before trial. The Board dismissed the petition on the parties' joint motion to terminate.
Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Formycon AG has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 52 claims of Regeneron's anti‑VEGF ophthalmic formulation patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art formulations and presentations. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of YMTC’s 3D NAND patent, arguing obviousness over Nishikawa, Lu, and Nishikawa2 references and asserting no discretionary denial factors.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1,2,4,6,19,21 of the ’721 Raman‑pump optimization patent, arguing they are obvious over Sugaya and, in combination, over Farmer. The petition stresses prompt filing and argues against discretionary denial.
Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The PTAB denied Formycon AG's IPR against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., citing substantial overlap with parallel district court proceedings (MDL). The Board found that the interests of system efficiency were best served by denying institution.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully challenged several claims in the NAND Flash patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds. The Board found that modifying TAC shapes and implementing dummy channels were simple advancements supported by prior art.
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.