US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 34 of 291 · 8,722 total
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care successfully challenged the patentability of Inari Medical's hemostasis valve claims before the PTAB, leading to institution on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board focused heavily on claim construction, ultimately defining 'filament' as a flexible length of material necessary for the device function. This decision sets important precedent regarding functional limitations in medical device patents.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by American Airlines and Southwest Airlines against Intellectual Ventures I LLC, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Lawson, Tsutsumitake, and Choquier in the dynamic routing network space.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR against Sandpiper CDN's patent 8478903, asserting that the core technology was obvious over prior art like Kenner.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
The Director denied the institution of IPR2025-00959, vacating a prior decision because Carbyne failed to explain inconsistencies in its claim construction arguments between district court and PTAB.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
Carbyne successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Tritech Software Systems regarding emergency SMS/geolocation technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) over various combinations of prior art references, including Brooks and SARLOC.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
AXA Power defends the USPTO Director's discretionary denial of Dabico's IPR petition, arguing the Director acted within broad authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and applied a holistic assessment. The Patent Owner contends the petitioner misapplies the review standard and seeks denial of the request for Director Review.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
The PTAB denied Dabico Airport’s request for Director Review of a denied institution decision, leaving AXA Power’s patent in force.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
Dabico Airport Solutions has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPR against AXA POWER APS’s ‘169 patent. The petitioner argues the Director improperly applied a new “settled expectations” discretionary denial standard without notice. The request seeks vacatur of the decision or additional briefing.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.EXELIXIS, INC.
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Exelixis’s U.S. 12,128,039 patent, arguing obviousness over Brown combined with Kubo and Robinson references.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
Dabico Airport Solutions has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of AXA Power’s preconditioned‑air‑unit patent, asserting that the claimed features are obvious over multiple HVAC prior‑arts. The petition cites Kreymer, Taras, Takahashi, Carrier and Lechmotoren as teaching the same elements.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1 and 17 of WSOU’s U.S. 9,450,884 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests institution of the review.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings without a trial. The settlement agreement is confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung filed a joint request to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,574,991 B2 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled IPR2025-01477 before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement confidential. No claim validity was decided.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display jointly settled eight IPR challenges to Patent 10,541,279, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before trial.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display have settled all disputes in IPR2025-01498 concerning U.S. Patent 10,720,483 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display have settled all disputes in IPR2025-01499 concerning U.S. Patent 9,299,730. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 317, citing that the Board has not decided the merits and that settlement serves public policy interests.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display have settled all disputes in IPR2025-01476 concerning patent 10,541,279 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to end the IPR before any merits are decided.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,574,991 covering OLED pixel circuits and have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that termination serves public policy and saves resources.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,500,496 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
Ciena Corporation seeks Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPR on patent 8,782,282, alleging violations of statutory and procedural requirements.
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
Ciena’s request for Director Review of a denied inter‑partes review is opposed by K.Mizra, which argues that the Director’s decision is discretionary and non‑reviewable under 35 U.S.C. § 314. The response cites Supreme Court precedent to show the petition lacks merit.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
Court decision.
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
The USPTO Director denied Ciena's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01362, leaving the denial of institution in place. No substantive patentability issues were addressed.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's OLED pixel‑circuit patent (US 11,574,991). The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering TFT layouts, capacitor structures, and pixel designs. Detailed claim‑by‑claim analyses are provided to support unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
Ciena Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate 22 claims of K. Mizra’s U.S. Patent 8,782,282, asserting they are obvious over prior‑art network‑management systems. The petition relies on Secer and Dinker as the combined teaching.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's 9,299,730 OLED display patent. The petition argues that all 19 claims are obvious over six prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Samsung Display's OLED‑related patent (US 10,720,483), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution under §325(d) or Fintiv.
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.