US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 287 of 291 · 8,722 total
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.Throughtek Co., Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding the challenged claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. The Board specifically found Claim 1 obvious over Lorex Guide and Kim, while also addressing issues of written description and statutory eligibility.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,116,546 unpatentable. The decision relied on the Petitioner's uncontested arguments that prior art references (Rosenberg and Brock) anticipated or rendered obvious the patent claims.
Cisco Systems Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB found that a large group of claims (15) were unpatentable over the prior art reference Gai under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board relied on Petitioner's '1B' theory, which successfully demonstrated obviousness by showing Gai disclosed all limitations of the claimed network topology and dummy traffic function. Claims 11, 12, 23, and 24 survived the challenge.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–12, 14–18, and 20–23 of the '886 patent are unpatentable. The Board concluded that the claimed fraud detection methods were obvious over combinations of prior art references including Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over the combination of prior art references Stone and Hoyos. The Board specifically agreed with Petitioner Apple Inc.'s arguments that an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to combine these systems for improved fraud resistance in electronic transactions.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness over combinations of Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese across various claim sets. The Board agreed that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these prior art references for fraud detection purposes.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied Dell, HP, and Asus’s request for rehearing of its earlier decision not to institute an IPR on patent 9,563,229. The Board concluded the petitioners failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly regarding the accelerometer claim limitations.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied Dell and its partners’ request for rehearing and refused to institute an inter partes review of the ’229 patent covering convertible laptop display modes, finding the petitioner’s arguments on two‑accelerometer prior art insufficient.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The USPTO Director denied Cisco's request for a Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00498, leaving the original denial in place.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR on its cloud firewall patent. The petition argues the Board erred on both the combination rationale and a typographical claim‑mapping error.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found Umbra's data‑beacon networking claims obvious. Umbra contends the Board misinterpreted the claim preamble and ignored key evidence, urging reversal of the unpatentability finding.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco responded to Umbra’s request for Director Review, arguing that the Board’s claim‑construction finding that the preamble “for providing data beacons” is non‑limiting is correct and that the request should be denied.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco Systems challenged UMBRA Technologies’ ’632 patent on data‑beacon and SD‑WAN innovations. UMBRA’s response argues the cited ’421 patent and ’685 provisional lack the required disclosures and contain cancelled matter, rendering them non‑prior art. The patent owner also asserts the term “data beacon” is a limiting preamble limitation not taught by the prior art.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The USPTO denied Cisco's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00344, leaving the earlier IPR outcome unchanged.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco Systems challenged UMBRA Technologies' patent 10574482, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art references Shieh and Potti. The petitioner asserts that industry standards for distributed firewalls make the claimed architecture predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
Petitioners successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review of U.S. Patent No. 9,563,229, challenging claims related to portable computing and orientation sensing. The grounds assert that various combinations of prior art references render the claimed features obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
Petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 9,563,229 regarding portable computer modes and orientation sensing, arguing that multiple claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The arguments rely heavily on combining Lane with Fujinawa, MIT, or Wehrenberg to show the claimed features were predictable in view of prior art.
HP Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
HP Inc. et al. challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844 in a petition asserting obviousness over various combinations of prior art references (Lane, Pogue, MIT, Hotelling, Segawa). The petitioner argues that the claimed features are merely predictable combinations of existing technology in portable computing devices.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to challenge Umbra Technologies' patent (11146632) in the PTAB, arguing that the claims are unpatentable over prior art. The petition asserts that the patented technology is anticipated or obvious by the Agarwala reference and related knowledge of a POSITA.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The PTAB denied Cisco's IPR petition against Umbra Technologies regarding network security claims (1-26). The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over the combined prior art teachings.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition brought by Dell and other companies against LiTL LLC's patent for display configurations in hinged devices. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its obviousness grounds, specifically regarding mode switching using an accelerometer.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Dell Technologies Inc., finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over prior art references like Lane and Fujinawa. The Board determined the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on any ground, upholding the patent's validity.
HP Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for HP Inc. et al. against LiTL LLC's patent claims. The Board adopted Petitioner's claim constructions for key terms like 'frame mode' and 'content mode,' clearing the path to trial.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. successfully challenged seven claims of UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.'s patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The Board preliminarily found that the claimed invention was obvious over the prior art reference Agarwala and general knowledge of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all seven challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over the prior art reference Agarwala. The decision adopted Petitioner's construction that 'data beacons' was merely an intended use, and found that Agarwala disclosed every structural limitation of the claims through a combination of disclosures.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Cortex MCP requests Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that cancelled 17 claims of its token‑payment patent. The owner contends the Board introduced a new obviousness theory not present in the petition, violating procedural rules and the APA.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
ICPillar LLC requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Arm Ltd.’s semiconductor‑device patent. The patent owner argues the panel misapplied Fintiv guidance and should deny institution due to untimely stipulations and parallel district‑court litigation.
AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
Daingean Technologies Ltd. submits a preliminary response to AT&T’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited prior art (Babaei, Fwu, Lee, Agiwal) does not teach the claimed “different‑from” RNTI, common search‑space, or confirmation features of claims 2 and 4, and therefore the petition should be denied.
VIVITRO LABS INC. v.BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC
Vivitro Labs and the patent owner settled their IPR dispute over a biomedical device patent, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa filed an authorized response opposing Cortex MCP’s Director Review request, asserting that the request raises a new, forfeited argument about the timing of verification in the Oborne prior art. Visa maintains the Board’s obviousness finding is well‑supported.
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.