US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 32 of 188 · 5,620 total
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 72 claims of CardWare’s ’634 patent, which covers a mobile payment card that generates limited‑duration payment numbers. The petition relies on obviousness arguments over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Hannibal IP’s 5G‑related ’896 patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over Guo, Intel, ZTE and the 5G‑Standard. The petition requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR case involving Samsung Electronics against Hannibal IP LLC regarding patent 11641661. The petitioner successfully met the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung Electronics and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR disputes before trial, resulting in the termination of seven pending IPRs, including IPR2025-01350 covering patent 11,740,801.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have reached a confidential settlement and jointly filed a motion to terminate the IPR on patent 11,740,801. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding without a merits decision.
BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD. v.Bishop Display Tech LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Bishop Display Tech’s LED driver patent (U.S. 8,093,830). The petition asserts that prior art references Ghanem, Nishimura, and Tripathi render all five claims obvious under §103. The Board is asked to institute the review and find the claims unpatentable.
BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD. v.Bishop Display Tech LLC
BOE Technology Group petitions the PTAB to invalidate ten claims of Bishop Display Tech’s OLED driver patent, asserting that prior art references Baek, Date, Inomoto, and Sasaki anticipate or render the claims obvious. The petition argues the examiner overlooked these references and that no secondary considerations support patentability.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health’s IPR against the ’013 single‑cell sequencing patent resulted in the Board finding all 28 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior publications by Linnarsson and McCloskey. The petition’s obviousness arguments were accepted and the patent owner’s defenses were rejected.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The PTAB found Samsung’s challenge successful for 11 of the 15 claims of Maxell’s ’815 patent, deeming them obvious over multiple prior‑art references, while four claims remained upheld.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung’s inter partes review of Maxell’s 11,017,815 B2 video‑profile patent ended with the PTAB finding none of the challenged claims unpatentable, preserving Samsung’s product roadmap.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense and VideoLabs have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of VideoLabs’ ’238 patent after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek to close the proceeding to conserve resources.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Meta Platforms' request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01333, leaving the original decision that the IPR was not instituted unchanged.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense and VideoLabs settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,769,238. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and ordered the related license agreement to be kept confidential.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms seeks Director Review of a denied IPR on patent 9,263,039. The patent owner, Dialect, argues for discretionary denial, citing the patent’s expiration, settled expectations, and the copycat nature of the petition. The Board has not yet ruled on the request.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms filed a Request for Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against Dialect’s 9,263,039 speech‑recognition patent. The petition argues that a settlement in the parallel Bank of America case makes the PTAB the first forum, and that the parent ’160 patent’s unpatentability for lacking a multi‑pass speech‑recognition limitation should extend to the child ’039 claims.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s ‘088 patent covering wireless LAN permission management faces an IPR from Samsung. The patent owner argues the prior art is unrelated and the petition fails to prove obviousness, seeking affirmation of all claims.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Samsung's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,026,088. The owner contends the petitioner’s obviousness arguments are unsupported and misinterpret prior art. The Board is asked to refuse institution.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung successfully challenged Maxell’s ’086 patent, leading the PTAB to find all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious. The Board relied on a combination of prior‑art references covering touch‑screen input methods.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Maxell’s 10,176,848 patent succeeded. All seven challenged claims—including those covering face‑recognition‑based chapter selection and a recording‑reproducing mode—were found obvious over Nozaki, Haitani, Graham and Kim.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 27 claims of a dual‑damascene interconnect patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists detailed grounds for each claim group and requests the Board to institute the review.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory’s ’510 DNA‑sequencing patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over the Lo application and other prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds covering 30 claims and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 14 claims of Telcom Ventures' smartphone payment patent, alleging obviousness over four prior art references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition to invalidate Dialect’s 8,447,607 patent covering multimodal speech processing. The challenger relies on Maes, Coffman and Ittycheriah references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 and urges the Board to institute the IPR.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Dialect’s 9,263,039 patent covering multimodal speech processing, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior patents Maes and Ross.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 13 claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 11,026,088, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering wireless LAN permission and connection management.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of the ’623 patent, arguing that dummy‑via and dual‑damascene features were anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists detailed grounds under §§102 and 103 and requests the Board to institute the review.
CrowdStrike, Inc. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Skysong Innovations’ ’897 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering machine‑learning‑based exploit prediction.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Cold Spring Harbor’s ’589 patent covering DNA‑tagging methods for copy‑number analysis, asserting the claims are obvious over Lo and other prior art. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense has filed a petition to invalidate VideoLabs' 2010 picture coding patent, asserting that the sole claim is obvious over a 2002 Nokia (Karczewicz) publication combined with H.324 and H.263 standards. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of claim 1.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
The USPTO Board denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition. The denial was based on a review of the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
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.