US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 30 of 291 · 8,722 total
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,865,291 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success. All 16 challenged claims are now subject to trial.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,974,910 patent covering clot‑removal systems. Imperative Care successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on multiple claims, prompting full‑scale review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim. The dispute centers on the definition of “filament” and the applicability of Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted inter partes review on all fifteen claims of Inari Medical’s ’005 patent, finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments against the hemostasis valve features sufficiently plausible.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, seeking to store it separately from the patent file and limit access.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,279,708 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec settled their IPR dispute. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec have entered a settlement that resolves their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,829,518, prompting a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The motion cites early‑stage status and judicial economy as reasons to end the proceeding.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,852,789 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR proceeding. The settlement agreement will be filed confidentially.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools USA and MWE Investments settled their IPR challenges against Champion Power's generator patent, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings for those parties.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corporation and IngenioSpec, LLC settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Court decision.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Court decision.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, limiting public access to the terms.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Court decision.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute (IPR2025-01557) before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement confidential. No claims were instituted or decided.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight, Generac, and MWE filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the patent file for Champion's dual‑fuel generator patent.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight and Champion Power have settled the IPR over U.S. Patent 11,840,970 covering a dual‑fuel generator. The parties filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations, and the petitioner seeks to withdraw from the proceeding.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals
Dr. Falk Pharma challenges Ellodi's U.S. Patent 12,290,598 covering orally disintegrating tablets, asserting lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, anticipation, and obviousness over numerous prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all 34 claims.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corporation has filed a petition to invalidate IngenioSpec’s U.S. Patent 12,044,901 covering head‑worn electronic devices. The petition asserts lack of priority and anticipatory/obviousness grounds based on Howell‑887 and multiple prior‑art combinations. The PTAB has yet to decide whether to institute the IPR.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corporation filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 32 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’2901 wireless headset patent, asserting lack of priority and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corp. filed an IPR petition challenging all 82 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’789 hearing‑enhancement patent. The petition asserts lack of written‑description support and cites multiple prior‑art references to render the claims anticipated or obvious under §§102 and 103.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s 12,109,384 patent covering a hemostasis valve. The petitioner alleges obviousness over prior‑art references Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Hermann and seeks institution of the review.
Hisense USA Corp. et al. v.Light Guide Innovations LLC
Hisense has filed a petition for inter partes review of Light Guide Innovations' U.S. Patent 7,936,415 covering LED backlight modules. The petition asserts seven obviousness grounds based on Roberts and other prior art references, seeking cancellation of all 18 claims.
Google LLC v.K.Mizra LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of K.Mizra’s network‑quarantine patent, arguing obviousness over prior art (Freund, Ball, Pujare) and urging the Board to institute trial after a prior institution denial was deemed erroneous.
Google LLC v.K.Mizra LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of K.Mizra’s ’705 patent covering network quarantine and remediation. The petition relies on obviousness over Freund, Ball, Pujare, and Lewis, and cites a Federal Circuit remand of a prior Cisco IPR.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display’s 7,279,708 OLED display patent. The petition argues that all asserted claims are obvious over four prior‑art references and urges the PTAB to institute the review.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corporation filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of IngenioSpec’s ‘518 headset patent, arguing that each claim is obvious over a series of prior‑art headset references. The petition groups the challenges into multiple obviousness grounds covering the full claim set.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Champion Power Equipment's 11,840,970 dual‑fuel generator patent. The petition alleges obviousness over numerous prior‑art references and challenges the claim language as means‑plus‑function under §112(f).
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.