US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 38 of 188 · 5,620 total
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
Interstellar Inc. submits a response urging the PTAB to deny Kahoot!’s request for Director Review of the discretionary denial in IPR2025‑00696. The owner contends the Director’s discretion is broad, there is no six‑year bright‑line rule for settled expectations, and the petitioner’s arguments are repetitive and unsupported.
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
Kahoot! has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Interstellar’s ’825 patent, arguing the six‑year settled‑expectations rule was misapplied.
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
The USPTO denied Kahoot!’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Interstellar’s patent. The denial leaves the original institution denial intact.
Skullcandy Inc. et al. v.Earin AB
Skullcandy’s petition to invalidate Earin’s wireless‑earbud patent was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach key claim limitations, so no reasonable likelihood of success was shown.
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
Kahoot! filed a request for Director Review of the PTAB institution decision, arguing the filing is timely and requesting correction of the document type and fee payment assistance.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla and patent‑assertion entity Intellectual Ventures II have jointly moved to dismiss the IPR and terminate the proceeding after resolving the dispute in a parallel district‑court case. The motion cites Board authority and the early, unbriefed status of the IPR as reasons for dismissal.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
Patent owners seek rehearing to overturn the PTAB's denial of discretionary denial, arguing that a June 2026 trial in the parallel district court precedes the PTAB's final decision deadline, invoking Fintiv factors. They reference a prior Director decision in a related IPR that denied institution under similar circumstances.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of three IPR institution decisions after the Patent Owner claimed the Petitioners violated a Sotera stipulation by litigating the same invalidity issues in district court. The parties may file brief arguments, and the proceedings are stayed pending the Director’s opinion.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
AMD and Pensando’s IPR petition against the ’596 patent is challenged by Concurrent Ventures and XtreamEdge, who argue the petition fails to identify claim construction and does not show prior art meets the claimed hardware queue limitations, seeking a discretionary denial of institution.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
The USPTO denied AMD and Pensando's request for rehearing of a Director discretionary denial in IPR2025-00478 concerning patent 8,924,596. The order affirms the original decision without further review.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,049,652 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness of key mutants. The Board has not yet ruled on the petition.
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
Kahoot! has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 14 claims of Interstellar’s ’825 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors is inappropriate.
Skullcandy Inc. et al. v.Earin AB
Skullcandy has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 20 and 21 of Earin's 9,402,120 wireless‑earbud patent. The petition relies on three obviousness grounds using Olodort, Guccione, Yamashita and the Bluetooth Spec. 4.1 as prior art. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed a petition to invalidate Dialect’s 607 patent covering multimodal speech processing, arguing obviousness over Maes and a combination of Maes, Coffman, and Ittycheriah, and urging the PTAB to institute review.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2, 5, 7‑8, and 11 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’395 patent on the ground of obviousness over Moir and Martínez. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Optronic Sciences' OLED pixel‑driving patent. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Kim406, Kim730, and Senda—to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of the ’596 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references that teach reservation registers and hardware queues. The petition argues the references were never considered during prosecution and seeks institution of the review.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent claims on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board ruled that the claimed modified polypeptides must exhibit hyaluronidase activity, narrowing the scope of the genus. This decision sets a precedent for interpreting functional limitations in polypeptide patents.
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements, Inc.'s petition against Duesenfeld GmbH's battery recycling patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability based on obviousness or indefiniteness across all challenged claims.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
The PTAB institution decision found that Advanced Micro Devices and Pensando Systems demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The dispute concerns task scheduling and processing element synchronization in computer systems, involving combinations of prior art references like Dongare and Gewirtz.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 8,793,336. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board upheld the denial, emphasizing the patent owner’s strong settled expectations and lack of any material error in examination.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB denied RØDE Microphones' request for rehearing of its institution denial, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate any Board error regarding the interpretation of Strub’s genlocking technique.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a decision denying institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent covering mobile data transmission. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, improper reliance on settled expectations, and procedural violations. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also highlighted.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks a discretionary denial of Coretronic’s IPR petition covering claims 1,3,4,7,9 of its display‑technology patent, arguing that parallel district‑court litigation makes institution inefficient and prejudicial.
International Business Machines Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 container‑technology patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as McMillan and Schaefer. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) is unwarranted.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.RightQuestion, LLC
AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RightQuestion's 2023 patent on automatic number identification. They assert that the claims are obvious over prior art references Har, Miller and French, and argue that the Board should institute the review under favorable Fintiv factors.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Proxense, LLC was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board found sufficient evidence that Apple demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its unpatentability assertions regarding digital key and biometric security systems.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for the patent owner Zaxcom against Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics regarding wireless audio synchronization claims. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds over prior art references like Strub and Woo.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Vermeer’s preliminary response to Kubota’s PGR petition argues that the cited Korean patent KR996 fails to disclose the pivotal attachment of linkages and actuators to the mainframe, a core limitation of claims 4‑14. The owner seeks denial of the petition on both anticipation and obviousness grounds.
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.