US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 31 of 291 · 8,722 total
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging Marlin Semiconductor’s U.S. 7,547,584 patent covering dummy openings for charge‑damage reduction in dual‑damascene processing. The petition asserts obviousness over six prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals
The PTAB granted institution for the PGR proceeding involving Dr. Falk Pharma and Ellodi Pharmaceuticals, allowing the challenge to move forward.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted institution for several Inter Partes Review proceedings after petitioners demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their challenges. Other cases were denied based on discretionary or merits reviews.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01444, allowing Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. to challenge the patent held by Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al., based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies, LLC
BOE Technology filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Paneltouch's 2016 touchscreen display patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies, LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Paneltouch Technologies' 8,704,762 display device patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references covering crack‑detection wiring in touch and display panels.
Alvotech USA Inc. et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Alvotech petitions the PTAB to invalidate Regeneron’s ’036 patent covering high‑dose aflibercept eye‑treatment formulations, alleging obviousness and lack of written description. The petition relies on multiple Regeneron disclosures and external prior art. The Board has yet to rule.
SHENZHEN QIANFENYI INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.Wacom Co. Ltd.
Shenzhen Qianfenyi (Maxeye) has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Wacom’s ’220 patent on active‑stylus communication, asserting that all challenged claims are anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against One‑E‑Way’s 9,107,000 patent covering wireless digital audio systems, challenging ten claims on priority and obviousness grounds.
Alvotech USA Inc. et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for the PGR proceeding (PGR2025-00085) involving Alvotech and Regeneron regarding patent 12168036. The petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01541 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision moves the case forward to merits review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review of One‑E‑Way’s U.S. Patent 10,129,627 covering wireless digital audio spread‑spectrum technology, seeking cancellation of all twelve claims on priority and obviousness grounds.
Hisense USA Corp. et al. v.Light Guide Innovations LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition challenging Light Guide Innovations' 8,267,537 patent covering LED backlight units. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Liu, Roberts, and Liu‑660, and establishes standing to proceed.
Apple Inc. v.Redstone Logics LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Redstone Logics’ ’339 patent covering multi‑core processor power management, seeking cancellation of ten claims as obvious over several pre‑AIA references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01540 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled eight related IPRs before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings on the parties' joint motion.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,439,015 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public policy favoring settlement.
Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v.Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al.
Cytek Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Beckman Coulter’s 2024 flow‑cytometer patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art WDM designs and lack of written description and enablement for key claim elements such as a “curved mirror” and “semiconductor detector.”
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display’s U.S. Patent 10,439,015 covering OLED TFT display structures. The petition alleges obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references, including Kim‑584, Kim‑923, Moon, Masao and others. No claim constructions are asserted; the claims are to be given their plain meaning.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology
Bio‑Rad petitions IPR to invalidate Caltech’s ’797 patent on multiplex PCR signal encoding, asserting the claims are obvious over Jouvenot and other prior art.
Luxottica of America Inc. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
Luxottica has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of e‑Vision’s ’612 smart‑eyewear patent, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier Bluetooth headset and voice‑assistant disclosures such as Howell, Gruber, Jannard‑740, and Osterhout.
Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v.Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR2025-00084) because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that any challenged patent claims were unpatentable.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01546 because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims. This decision is based on merits review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Luxottica of America Inc. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01512, allowing Luxottica to challenge E-Vision's patent 11971612 on the merits.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,542,571 B2 before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petitions and terminate the proceedings.
FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
FedEx has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations' 2009 patent on hot deployment in grid computing, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 7,676,194 covering an ultrawideband broadband repeater. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references including Ganz, Larrick, Engels, Perlman and Roese. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’548 patent covering steerable antenna technology for radiation safety. The petition relies on prior art such as Schlub, Oshiyama, Prasad, Seol and Yin to argue anticipation and obviousness.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing they are obvious over a suite of older apheresis technologies. The petition lists nine statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103, each tied to specific prior‑art references.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Malikie’s ’571 patent covering application control on electronic devices, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
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.