US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 37 of 188 · 5,620 total
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
A 2024 study of PTAB final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPRs often have extensive prior‑art citations and that most unpatentability grounds depend on new prior art introduced during the proceeding, with expert testimony frequently influencing outcomes.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Google LLC’s petition to invalidate Dialect’s 7,398,209 patent on speech‑interface technology was denied. The Board concluded the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of its obviousness arguments.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
The USPTO denied Microsoft’s request to institute an Inter Partes Review of Dialect’s patents, citing the patents’ long‑standing ownership and a parallel district‑court case. No trial will proceed.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex PLC and Credo Technology Group settled their IPR disputes covering three patents, including U.S. Patent 11,012,252, and jointly moved to terminate the proceedings. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and emphasizes that no merits decision has been rendered.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect, LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025-01351 before institution, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet made an institution decision, and the parties seek confidentiality for the agreement.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Credo’s ’233 active‑cable patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Lugthart‑706, Gorecki‑617 and the IEEE 802.3‑2015 Ethernet standard.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Credo’s 11,032,111 patent, asserting that prior‑art active‑cable and adaptive‑pre‑equalization references make the claims obvious under §103.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of Dialect’s 2008 speech‑interface patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Marvell files an IPR petition challenging Credo’s ’252 active‑cable patent, asserting that its equalization claims were already known in prior‑art active cable designs.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Credo’s active Ethernet cable patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,350,649, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references such as Kotzin and Phatak. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01219, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 11012252.
Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Aesthetic Management Partners has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of HydraFacial’s ’477 skin‑treatment patent. The petition relies on obviousness grounds under §103, citing multiple prior‑art references covering microdermabrasion and fluid delivery systems.
Apple Inc. v.CText IP LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of CText IP’s ’304 patent covering chat‑window visual cues. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Chang, Oh, and Stochosky—to argue obviousness under §103 and argues against discretionary denial.
Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01217, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger set of institutional rulings.
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.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, asserting that all claims 12‑21 are obvious over prior art. The petition relies on Park, Baughan, Johnson and Hirsch references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 11,589,969 intraoral mesh patent. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over five prior‑art references covering all independent and dependent claims.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists ten distinct grounds, each tying claim groups to references such as Black, Park, Baughan, Johnson, Hirsch, and Zheng.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.'s IPR petition against Solmetex, LLC's dental device patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board ruled that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding obviousness over prior art references like Black and Park/Baughan/Johnson.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,077,791 covering modified PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts that the claims are overly broad and lack both written description and enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Merck seeks institution of the proceeding and cancellation of all claims.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Sandpiper's 8,719,886 patent covering video‑stream delivery and targeted advertising. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Acharya, Carle, Schein, Fransdonk) and cites favorable institution factors.
Google LLC v.Bootler, LLC
Google has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate all 17 claims of Bootler’s food‑delivery data‑aggregation patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sandpiper CDN’s 8,595,778 patent covering video‑stream authorization, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Halozyme's PH20 polypeptide claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description and enablement. The Board instituted the petition, finding that the specification broadly defines a 'modified PH20 polypeptide' but lacked sufficient examples to support the vast scope of multiply-substituted variants claimed.
Toyota Motor Corp. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of AutoConnect Holdings’ U.S. Patent No. 12,039,243 covering vehicle user‑profile systems. The petitioner alleges the claims are abstract and obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Toyota Motor Corp. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. successfully petitioned to challenge AutoConnect Holdings LLC's patent, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on grounds of obviousness (103) and patent eligibility (101). The Board found it likely that multiple claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Hendry.
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 12,119,463 filed by Ascend Elements against Duesenfeld GmbH.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s enzyme‑based contraceptive patent, arguing that the claims lack sufficient written description and enablement. The reply emphasizes the vast, undefined genus of modified PH20 polypeptides and the impossibility of testing all variants.
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.