US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 278 of 291 · 8,722 total
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Metarail’s ‘normalized variable data database’ patent. The petitioner contends the Board misread claim scope and that the Belanger‑Halevy combination satisfies the claimed mapping step.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Metarail’s data‑mapping patent. The petitioner asserts the Board misread claim scope and the combination of Belanger and Halevy references.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Metarail’s ’734 patent. The petitioner asserts the Board misread the claim scope by improperly tying it to a non‑limiting table example. Google seeks reversal so the trial can proceed.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications’ ’651 patent covering CDMA multi‑user detection, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Fuller, Reznik, Frank, and Zha.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
Lenovo and its allies have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 26 claims of Universal Connectivity Technologies' serial‑communication patent, alleging obviousness over Auld, MPEG‑2, Shin and Hiroshima references.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
HP, Dell, and Lenovo have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of U.S. Pat. 7,187,307, alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art block‑encoding disclosures (Shin, Yusairi). The petition requests the Board to institute review and invalidate the claims.
Apple Inc. v.Rally AG LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Rally’s email‑cloaking patent, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeking institution of the review.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
HP, Dell, and Lenovo have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Universal Connectivity’s packet‑preemption patent, arguing it is anticipated and obvious over earlier Banes and Calvignac disclosures.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC petitioned the PTAB challenging Metarail's patent covering automated deep-link creation based on obviousness (103). The Board found that the petition showed a strong basis on the merits and decided to institute review of all 20 claims. This decision moves the dispute into the substantive examination phase at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC has challenged Metarail's deep-linking patent (10262342) at the PTAB, asserting that the claims are obvious.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC has challenged Metarail's deep-linking patents in a PTAB petition, arguing that the claimed invention—a universal variable map for generating deep-linked ads—is obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references like Belanger and Halevy would have made the automation of mapping fields predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging Metarail's '626 patent, arguing that its claims regarding parameter mapping and deep linking automation are obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references, including Belanger, Halevy, and Reichardt, to establish obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request to institute an IPR against Collision Communications, citing the Fintiv factors. The Board found that scheduling proximity and significant investment weighed heavily in favor of denying institution despite allegations of obviousness.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for a petition challenging Patent No. 7,746,798 B2, citing both procedural factors and significant weaknesses in the merits. The denial was influenced by the proximity of an expected trial date in related litigation to the final decision timeline.
Apple Inc. v.Rally AG LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Rally AG LLC's ID cloaking patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence to overcome obviousness challenges based on prior art references Lee, Hardt, and Le Jouan.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by HP Inc. and others against Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc., citing that the petitioner's allegations of anticipation and obviousness were not 'particularly strong.' The decision also addressed discretionary denial under § 314(a) based on parallel district court litigation.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR petition concerning serial data transmission and symbol encoding (Patent No. 7154905). The Board found that while the petitioner raised obviousness arguments, the merits of the case were not sufficiently strong to overcome procedural hurdles.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
The PTAB denied Google LLC's IPR challenge against Metarail, Inc.'s patent (10152734), finding no evidence of obviousness or anticipation. The Board concluded that the prior art failed to teach a specific 'universal variable mapper' necessary for the claims.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's request for rehearing regarding the institution of IPR against Metarail's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the prior art disclosed the claimed mapping limitations.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's IPR challenge against Metarail, Inc.'s deep-linking and ad targeting patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that prior art (Belanger and Halevy) did not teach or suggest the specific method of mapping fields between different websites using normalized variables.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's IPR challenge against Metarail, Inc.'s deep linking technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Belanger and Halevy.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's request for rehearing was denied after the PTAB initially denied institution of IPR against Metarail, Inc.'s patent 9633378, concerning data mapping technologies.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's attempt to invalidate Metarail, Inc.'s patent on deep-linking and e-commerce technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and ST CasesTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,319,620 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute, filing joint motions that led the Board to terminate the proceeding before trial. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential, and counsel withdrawals were approved.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International and ST CasesTech settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,319,620 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 15 claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,620 covering a vehicle acoustic awareness system, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
LEDup Manufacturing filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the PTAB’s decision that dependent claims 3 and 8 of the ’794 patent remain patentable. The appeal targets the Board’s claim‑construction and other adverse rulings, and is now before the Federal Circuit.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the pending IPR over patent 10,652,111.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01239 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’111 patent. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties seek termination for judicial economy.
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.