US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 28 of 291 · 8,722 total
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 43 of U.S. Patent 9,005,293, asserting that the claim is anticipated or obvious over prior‑art spinal‑implant references. The petition highlights alleged nondisclosure of key references during prosecution and deficiencies in the patent’s written description.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑5 of SoundClear’s ’337 patent, asserting that prior‑art references Shin, Shimomura and Kristjansson anticipate or make obvious the claimed voice‑controlled device features.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 26 claims of Massively Broadband's U.S. Patent 8,923,754, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references including Ganz, Larrick, Engels, and Perlman.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01598, allowing Medtronic to challenge Moskowitz Family LLC's patent 9005293 at the merits stage.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP petitions to invalidate claim 7 of Omni MedSci’s ’790 wearable sensor patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness under §112.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that WHOOP proved unpatentability of 12 of the 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological‑measurement patent, while the remaining 11 claims were left intact. The decision hinged on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references covering optical sensing, modulation, and AI‑driven analysis.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that WHOOP’s challenge succeeded, finding all of the asserted claims of Omni MedSci’s ‘533 patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer prior art.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that all challenged claims of the ’533 wearable physiological measurement patent were unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that WHOOP’s challenge to Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent failed; all asserted claims were found obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer under §103(a).
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB found that WHOOP proved unpatentability of 12 of the 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent, while the remaining 11 claims were left intact. The decision hinged on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 27 claims of Omni MedSci’s ’304 wearable sensor patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB affirmed the construction of “identify an object” and held that all 23 claims of WHOOP’s wearable health‑monitoring patent are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering them unpatentable.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB remand decision held that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximetry patent are unpatentable, applying 35 U.S.C. § 103 obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The PTAB held that WHOOP proved the obviousness of 12 of the 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent, while the remaining claims were not shown unpatentable.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
Apple’s IPR against WHOOP resulted in the Board finding all 23 claims of the wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable under obviousness. The decision affirmed the petitioner’s claim construction and rejected the patent owner’s arguments.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’301 patent, arguing they are obvious over three prior‑art publications. The petition focuses on the device’s carrier structure and the angled AWG surface.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Applied Optoelectronics seeks a discretionary denial of an IPR petition filed by Accelight Technologies over its photonics patent (U.S. 10,042,116). The owner argues the petition repeats issues already litigated and relies on prior‑art already considered by the USPTO.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ U.S. Patent 10,042,116, arguing that the AWG‑based optical transceiver concepts were obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP, Inc. petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Omni MedSci's wearable sensor patent (U.S. 10,874,304), asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition relies on earlier IPR findings and collateral estoppel to argue the claims lack patentability.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 33 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’625 patent, which covers steerable‑antenna techniques for reducing user radiation. The challenger argues the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references, including Schlub, Seol, Prasad, and Yin.
Bonerge Lifescience (Hunan) Co., Ltd. v.Nanjing Nutrabuilding Bio-Tech Co., Ltd.
Bonerge Lifescience petitions the PTAB to invalidate five method claims of a diabetes‑treatment patent, asserting obviousness over Turner, Shaw, Zhang and Feng references.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 6, 11‑12, 14, and 18 of Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable optical sensor patent, asserting obviousness over Lisogurski combined with Carlson, Walker, or Tam and invoking collateral estoppel from prior IPRs.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑4 of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’301 patent, asserting obviousness over Kim and over a Ho‑Lee combination. The petition includes a claim‑construction argument for the term “carrier.”
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition challenging all 11 claims of Skysong Innovations’ ’831 patent, which covers energy‑efficient CNN processing. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references and invokes 35 U.S.C. § 103. No institution decision has been made yet.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
WHOOP, Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Omni MedSci’s wearable optical sensor patent (U.S. 11,160,455) on obviousness grounds, citing five prior‑art references and prior IPR findings that the same claim limitations were already deemed unpatentable.
Curium US LLC v.Universität Heidelberg et al.
Curium US LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against the ‘901 patent covering alpha‑emitter PSMA‑targeted therapies, arguing obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight has filed an IPR petition challenging Applied Optoelectronics' 10,042,116 patent covering AWG‑based optical transceiver modules, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references.
Bonerge Lifescience (Hunan) Co., Ltd. v.Nanjing Nutrabuilding Bio-Tech Co., Ltd.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01593, allowing the challenger to proceed to a merits review after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01567 after finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The notice also detailed multiple denials across various proceedings.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Institution for Inter Partes Review (IPR) was granted in IPR2025-01566 after the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
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.