US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 33 of 286 · 8,574 total
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The PTAB denied Google and Sandpiper CDN's requests for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs, including the 8,478,903 patent. The denial leaves the original institution rulings in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving SoundClear’s patent 9,804,819. The denial leaves the original institution decisions, which denied institution, in place.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute inter partes review of its expired content‑delivery patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and misread the prior art. The request seeks reversal of the institution.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
Globalfoundries and OAK IP settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,691 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information, and the proceeding was terminated.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,929,896 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding before a final written decision.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 11,929,896. The Board accepted the joint motion and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz settled their inter partes review dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding after it had been instituted. The Board granted the joint motion and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent (U.S. Patent 11,697,012) on all nine claims after finding the challenger, Imperative Care, showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The dispute centers on claim construction of “filament” and alleged anticipation/obviousness over prior‑art references.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE settled their IPR against Champion Power's dual‑fuel selector switch patent. They filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care’s petition to invalidate Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent was granted. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness grounds and instituted review of all nine claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care likely to prevail on at least one claim. All 15 claims are now under review.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Fractus seeks Director Review to overturn the institution of an IPR that relied on a novel written‑description analysis of its 4G antenna patent. The Owner argues the Board misapplied the law, making the priority claim valid and the prior art inapplicable.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR on a communication‑quality patent. The patent owner argues the Director’s authority is exclusive and the petition’s APA claims are meritless. The Board is urged to deny the Director Review request.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care has shown a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim. The dispute centers on whether the claimed “filament” must be flexible, with the Board presently favoring the patent owner’s interpretation.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab’s IPR against Fractus’s LTE‑Band‑12 antenna patent was instituted, with the Board affirming that Baliarda‑543 anticipates the challenged claims and that the priority analysis is correct.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging ten claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 12‑21 and argues that the patent owner broadened claim scope after product launch.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Solmetex’s 2023 intraoral mesh patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over five earlier dental mouthpiece references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.
Starbucks and Pi‑Design have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,695,486. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking trade‑secret protections under the CFR. The request seeks to limit public disclosure and to be notified of any access requests.
CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.
The USPTO denied Carbyne’s request for an extension to file a Director Review, finding no good cause and citing Revvo precedent. CentralSquare’s claim‑construction positions were already known before the deadline.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Lattice Semiconductor and Technicolor have settled their dispute, filing a joint notice to vacate the scheduled case management conference and dismiss the case.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo withdrew its IPR against Resonant Systems’ U.S. Patent 8,860,337 covering gaming controller haptic feedback. The Board granted the motion, terminating the proceeding before any institution or claim analysis.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01189, seeking to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ patent covering proximity‑based data exchange, resulting in a Final Written Decision that all fifteen challenged claims are unpatentable.
Perfect Corporation v.Zugara, Inc.
Perfect Corp. and Zugara, Inc. settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,482,517. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑01108 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Proxicom Wireless’s proximity‑based transaction patent, resulting in a Final Written Decision that all nine challenged claims are unpatentable. The Board found the claims anticipated or obvious over prior art references Perttila and Swartz.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over the Eagle and Mgrdechian references. The petition argues the prior art was never considered during prosecution and requests institution of the IPR.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition against Secure Communication’s ’359 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Perttila and obvious in view of Swartz. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of nine claims under §§102 and 103.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition on the basis of a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, violates the APA, and is arbitrary and capricious. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of 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.