US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 37 of 291 · 8,722 total
Atrius Development Group Corp. v.ABC IP, LLC et al.
Atrius has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate ABC IP’s forced‑reset trigger patent (US 12,038,247) by arguing the claims are obvious over earlier patents and publicly posted YouTube videos that disclose a three‑position selector.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑6 of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’510 FinFET patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition presents three grounds, each invoking 35 U.S.C. § 103, targeting the entire claim set.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent 8,918,127, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art messaging systems. The petition relies on Horvath and Tsampalis publications and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--
Airwallex has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of U.S. Patent 11,620,701, alleging obviousness over five prior‑art references. The petition follows multiple infringement lawsuits in Texas that rely on the same patent.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services’ hydraulic fracturing patent, arguing that claims 1‑14 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of MessageLoud’s ’964 patent, alleging obviousness over Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition argues that prior‑art systems already disclosed in‑vehicle message queuing, audio playback and user controls.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of MessageLoud’s ’775 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Boelter, Gruber, and Polak. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate 25 claims of MessageLoud's 9,591,117 patent covering hands‑free message notification, citing Boelter, Gruber and Polak as prior art.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of MessageLoud’s ’725 patent, alleging obviousness over Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the entire claim set.
Apple Inc. v.MessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of MessageLoud’s ’728 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition requests institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS LLC,
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Cobblestone Wireless’s 2011 patent covering simultaneous transmission over multiple RF frequencies, asserting obviousness over Rofougaran and Shearer references.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of MOSAID’s ’381 flash memory patent, asserting obviousness over the Grundy and Kilbuck references. The petition includes a detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis and an expert declaration.
Citrix Systems, Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra LLC
Citrix and Cloud Software Group have filed a petition to invalidate K.Mizra’s network‑security patent, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over established prior‑art combinations.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 8,471,950. The petition alleges obviousness over three prior‑art references—Tsujino, Shui, and Iwasaki—across three separate grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of Maxell’s ’645 video‑processing patent. The petition relies on obviousness over the Kim and Fujimura references.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Maxell’s ’198 patent covering digital image playlist creation, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds, each pairing specific claim groups with combinations of earlier patents.
Nicholson Manufacturing Ltd. et al. v.BID GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The USPTO Board issued mixed institution decisions across multiple IPR and PGR proceedings. Several cases were granted for trial based on likelihood of prevailing, while others were denied due to lack of merit or discretionary concerns.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Infineon against MOSAID regarding patent 9,972,381 B1, setting the stage for trial.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for five IPR/PGR proceedings after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Other cases were denied based on resource efficiency or lack of merit likelihood.
Atrius Development Group Corp. v.ABC IP, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01473 for Atrius Development Group Corp. against ABC IP, LLC because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01431 after reviewing the merits and finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Other proceedings were denied based on discretionary or non-discretionary factors.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01315 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institution decisions across various proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01314 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01312 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
ToughBuilt Industries, Inc. v.Meridian International Co. Ltd.
ToughBuilt Industries petitions the PTAB to invalidate Meridian International’s 11,192,689 patent covering a stackable storage system with a sliding latch. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, seeking cancellation of all 20 claims.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and Champion Power Equipment have settled their IPR dispute and request the Board treat the settlement agreement as confidential, keeping it separate from the patent file and limiting access to government agencies or parties with good cause.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, while Generac Power Systems continues as the remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements were ordered confidential.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential, limiting access to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the prior art does not disclose the claimed mobile‑terminal features and that Samsung’s claim‑construction reservations violate procedural rules.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, contending that the prior art never teaches the claimed ‘unlock’ function and that Samsung’s expert testimony is conclusory.
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.