US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 30 of 188 · 5,620 total
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR because the patent owner had filed a statutory disclaimer covering all challenged claims and the entire patent term.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01303 involving Cisco Systems and Dynamic Mesh Networks after reviewing the merits. This allows the proceeding to move forward to a full trial.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and its combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 12,016,580 covering intravascular embolism treatment devices after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently promising.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Sonos’s audio patent.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of its IPR petition against Sonos’s audio‑player patent, alleging procedural violations of the APA, improper delegation of authority, and fee‑setting misalignment.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s 12,016,580 hemostasis valve patent, finding a reasonable likelihood that Imperative Care will prevail on at least one of the nine challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success sufficient. All nine claims are now under trial.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
The PTAB notified Google and Sonos that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-01213. Sonos may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Sonos filed a response defending the PTAB Director’s denial to institute Google’s IPR over patent 10,541,883, arguing the Director’s discretion is unreviewable and that procedural requirements were met.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inari Medical’s 12,016,580 clot‑removal patent. The petition relies on Garrison and several other catheter‑related references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sonos’s U.S. Patent No. 10,541,883. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Cheshire, Meenan, and Spurgat under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s FinFET fabrication patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Xu, Lin, and Brask under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01265, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This notice also details multiple other institutional decisions across various proceedings.
Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart v.Fall Line Patents, LLC
The PTAB found claims 1,2,5,19‑22 of the ’748 patent unpatentable for obviousness over prior art, while claim 7 remained patent‑eligible.
Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart v.Fall Line Patents, LLC
Instacart’s challenger Maplebear has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 3, 4 and 6‑15 of the ’748 data‑management patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Mojawa filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Shenzhou Shokz’s bone‑conduction headphone patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for multiple claims in the audio device patent (11197084). The Petitioner successfully argued that combining prior art references, particularly Li and Fujita, renders the claimed earphone structure obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a referral decision, arguing that proceeding with the IPR would duplicate the ongoing MDL concerning mercury‑control patents and waste resources. The brief cites efficiency concerns and prior PTAB rulings to request denial of institution.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB terminated the IPRs against MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement with BirchTech, leaving the case open only against PacifiCorp.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information under applicable statutes.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. jointly moved to terminate an IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board must decide whether to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech Corp. jointly moved to have their settlement agreements kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations. The Board is asked to treat the agreements as business‑confidential information, limiting public access.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes and jointly moved to terminate the IPR as to Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light, arguing that no merits decision has been made and that settlement serves public policy goals.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp challenges the Director’s referral of its IPR on a mercury‑control patent, arguing the PTAB is the appropriate forum and requesting denial of the Director Review. The response highlights prosecution misstatements, lack of settled expectations, and inefficiencies in the MDL.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility companies and BirchTech settled multiple IPRs covering power‑grid patents. The Board treated the settlement agreements as confidential and terminated the IPRs as to the settling petitioners, leaving the remaining petitioners in the proceeding.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement before any merits decision.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
A joint settlement between WEC Energy Group and BirchTech has prompted a motion to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,926,218. The parties rely on 35 U.S.C. §317 to dismiss WEC from the proceeding before any merits decision. The Board must now decide whether to grant the termination.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of all 38 claims of U.S. Patent 12,249,437, arguing anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness based on prior art from Hassfjell‑Hoff, Norman, IAEA, and Westrøm.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and its affiliates have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate U.S. Patent 10,926,218, which covers mercury removal from coal‑fired power plant flue gas. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over several prior‑art references and argues lack of written‑description support for key claim limitations. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the IPR.
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.