US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 36 of 286 · 8,574 total
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against a proximity‑based advertising patent resulted in five of the nine challenged claims being found unpatentable, while the remaining four claims were upheld.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 7‑18 of Solmetex’s 11,589,970 patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art dental mouthpiece references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Netskope, Inc. v.K.Mizra LLC
Cisco, Forescout and HPE challenged K.Mizra’s 2012 network‑quarantine patent. The PTAB found the challengers failed to prove obviousness over prior art and upheld all claims.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based device‑identification patent was denied. The Board found the petition lacked sufficient evidence to show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the asserted claims.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB found 11 of the 14 challenged claims of the ’395 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) due to anticipation by Grupp ’483, while claims 11, 12, and 14 survived. Written‑description and enablement challenges were rejected.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB held that claims 19‑23 of the ’592 patent are unpatentable over Perttila and Insolia, while claims 25,26,28,29 remain patentable. The decision reflects a mixed outcome for the challenged patent.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The Board instituted IPR2020‑01206 on 294 claims of the ’691 patent and held eight claims unpatentable for anticipation by Grupp ’483, while leaving the remaining claims intact.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
Microsoft and Affirmed Networks successfully challenged Lemko’s 7,855,988 patent, with the PTAB finding all asserted claims unpatentable due to anticipation by the Flore publication.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB held that claims 19‑23 of the ’592 patent were obvious over Perttila and Insolia and thus unpatentable, while claims 25, 26, 28, 29 remained patentable. The decision reflects a mixed outcome for the parties.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci, finding claims 7 and 10‑14 of the ’299 patent unpatentable for obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer, and Park references.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
Google’s IPR against Valtrus’s 6,728,704 B2 patent was decided with all 23 challenged claims upheld. The Board found the prior‑art Bushee not anticipatory and rejected obviousness arguments over Voorhees, Tso, and Koppel.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian settled the IPRs covering patent 11,544,183 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement documents to remain confidential.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR petition challenging nine claims of the ’749 patent was denied. The Board concluded the petition lacked sufficient particularity and did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation or obviousness grounds.
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.
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.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that terminated the IPR on patent 11,272,535. The Board granted the joint motion under 35 U.S.C. §317 and kept the settlement confidential.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a wireless‑device patent, arguing anticipation by Mgrdechian and obviousness in view of Kulakowski. The petition stresses that the prior art was never considered during prosecution and urges the Board not to deny institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01189 after reaching a settlement covering multiple patents. The motion cites lack of a final written decision and the benefits of conserving Board resources.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01189 concerning patent 11,368,911. The Board granted the motion and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of a wireless‑communication patent, asserting that the prior‑art Eagle anticipates and makes the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of the trial to invalidate the claims.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution denial in three IPRs involving Advanced Coding Technologies' patents. The order confirms the original institution decisions remain in effect.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,334,918 covering proximity‑beacon communications. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness of claims 1‑8.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk and Longitude Flash jointly moved to dismiss an IPR over U.S. Patent 9,929,240 covering NAND flash memory after settling their dispute. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties seek termination under statutory settlement provisions.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions settled their IPRs (IPR2025-01281 and IPR2025-01283) before institution. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ patent on proximity‑based wireless exchange, leading the PTAB to find all challenged claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01190 over U.S. Patent 11,641,661, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet issued a final decision, and the parties seek to end the proceeding and keep the agreement confidential.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB held that all eight claims of the ’164 patent are unpatentable, finding that the prior art Mgrdechian and secondary references anticipate or render obvious each claim element. The decision resolves Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Taiwan Semiconductor and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,884,373 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not decided the merits, and the motion cites statutory authority for termination.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against a proximity‑based wireless patent resulted in the Board finding 20 of 22 challenged claims unpatentable, leaving only claims 37 and 43 intact.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Dynamic Mesh Networks seeks a discretionary denial of institution for Cisco’s IPR challenging its 2011 mesh‑network patent. The owner argues settled expectations, Fintiv factors, and weak obviousness grounds relying on multiple prior‑art references and extensive expert testimony.
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.