US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 291 · 8,722 total
Vivint LLC v.Zinser, Duke
Vivint LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 21‑47 of U.S. Patent 7,583,191, asserting they are obvious over the Schranz prior‑art reference.
Apple Inc. v.TopWire, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of TopWire’s ’202 Patent covering a spacer‑connector package‑on‑package structure, alleging obviousness over Chen, Sun, Wu and Furuta references.
QD Oxford UK Limited et al. v.Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc.
QD Oxford UK has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑6, 8, and 17‑19 of U.S. Patent 12,313,320 covering dilution refrigerators. The petition relies on six prior‑art references to argue obviousness and anticipation under §§ 102 and 103.
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of AccuSearch’s ’184 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists eight §103 grounds covering the full claim set.
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 26 claims of AccuSearch’s search‑result annotation patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition maps each claim group to combinations of Bates, Bhagat, Naick, Brinson, Mehta, Wang and Mills. The Board is asked to institute the review and invalidate the patent.
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 39 claims of AccuSearch’s ’937 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art search‑engine interfaces. The petition relies on Bates, Bhagat, Brinson, Mehta, Naick, Wang and Mills as teaching references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber and its freight subsidiary have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Carma Technology’s 7,840,427 patent covering shared‑transport routing. The petition relies on the Olmi UK patent application as both anticipatory and obvious prior art for the asserted claims.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Carma Technology’s ridesharing patent (US 11,017,668) on the basis that its claims are obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition lists two grounds covering all 20 claims and requests institution of the review.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition challenging Carma’s ’138 ride‑sharing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over existing transport‑sharing systems disclosed in Olmi, Gaspard, Thomas and Wolfe.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate twelve claims of Carma’s ridesharing patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Olmi, Paul, and Jarvinen. The petition includes detailed claim constructions and a single obviousness ground under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition challenging Carma’s ’456 patent covering shared transport systems. The petition asserts obviousness over O’Sullivan and Olmi references and argues lack of written‑description support. Uber seeks institution of the IPR.
Microsoft Corporation v.ToutVirtual, Inc.
Microsoft petitions the PTAB to invalidate ToutVirtual’s virtual‑systems‑management patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a lack of priority for half the claims.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging 92 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’355 patent covering wearable audio devices. The petition argues the claims are obvious over six prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 13 claims of Qomplx’s 2025 patent on graph‑based cyber‑attack detection, asserting obviousness over two earlier publications. The petition argues that each claim element is fully disclosed in Brezinski and Crabtree, and no evidence of non‑obviousness is offered.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition targeting claim 55 of IngenioSpec’s ’355 patent covering wearable audio devices. The petition asserts the claim is obvious over prior‑art hearing‑aid patents and a textbook, and asks the Board to institute review and cancel the claim.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.Treace Medical Concepts, Inc.
Paragon 28 seeks to invalidate Treace’s 12,349,941 bunion‑correction patent, alleging lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over prior surgical methods and devices. The petition requests cancellation of all 27 claims.
FanDuel, Inc. et al. v.WinView IP Holdings, LLC
FanDuel has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate WinView’s ‘349 patent covering synchronized live‑sports gaming, asserting that a 1998 European filing anticipates all challenged claims.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.BUNKER HILL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
Toyota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Bunker Hill’s U.S. Patent 10,549,648 covering hybrid‑electric vehicle propulsion. The challenger alleges anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all 20 claims.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Smart Speaker’s ’721 smart‑home patent, asserting that all asserted claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association
USAA and Regions Bank have reached a settlement in principle and jointly moved to stay all case deadlines while finalizing the agreement. The motion seeks a 14‑day stay to allow filing of dismissal papers.
Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association
USAA and Regions Bank have reached a settlement in principle and jointly filed a motion to stay all deadlines while finalizing the agreement. The motion seeks a 14‑day stay to file dismissal papers.
Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association
Fifth Third Bank has filed a petition to have the PTAB institute an IPR against USAA’s 12,159,310 patent covering mobile check‑deposit methods, asserting that all 16 claims are obvious over a body of prior art.
Okta, Inc. et al. v.Thales DIS France SAS
Okta has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Thales' ’982 patent covering biometric hash‑based authentication. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of Starner, Leskovec, Shaashua, and Bowman references.
Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association
Fifth Third Bank has filed a petition to institute an IPR against US Patent 12,211,095 covering mobile check‑deposit technology. The petition alleges that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of earlier mobile imaging references. It seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Genzyme’s ’313 AAV detection patent. The petition asserts that all 27 claims are obvious in view of earlier publications on LC‑MS and RP‑HPLC analysis of viral proteins. No secondary considerations are believed to overcome the obviousness argument.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Vusura Technology LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑25 of Vusura’s ’303 patent, which covers multimedia content presentation during telephone calls. The challenger relies on the 2007 Roundtree publication to argue obviousness under §103.
Albaugh, LLC v.BASF SE et al.
Albaugh, LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑6 of BASF’s 2025 glufosinate formulation patent, asserting anticipation by the Long patent and obviousness over Long alone or combined with synthesis references.
Google LLC v.K.Mizra LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of K.Mizra's 2012 wireless networking patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Yoon, Andric, and Budampati references.
SAGEMCOM BROADBAND SAS v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Sagemcom Broadband petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Entropic Communications’ ’275 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Zhang and related prior art.
CRRC Meishan Co. Ltd. et al. v.Howmet Aerospace Inc.
CRRC Meishan has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Howmet Aerospace’s blind‑fastener patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Corbett 2018, Corbett 1981, Hurd, Sadri, and the BobTail catalog.
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.