US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 39 of 286 · 8,574 total
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.’s request for Director Review of the USPTO’s decision not to institute the IPR covering HBCU Messaging’s patent 11,089,450, as well as two related IPRs. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA and MWE Investments while keeping Generac Powers Systems as a remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements were made confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
Excelliance Mos Corp. seeks Director Review of a Board’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against Force MOS Technology’s trench‑MOSFET patent, arguing the denial ignored material prior art and violated statutory rights.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing that the prior art does not disclose key claim limitations and that Samsung’s inconsistent claim constructions violate Board rules.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, asserting that the prior art was already considered, the petition contains false statements, and the expert testimony adds no weight. The owner contends that none of the cited references disclose the claimed dynamic operation‑panel architecture.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple seeks to invalidate Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitor patent, arguing that all challenged claims are obvious over prior art. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel the claims.
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.
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.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Guardant Health’s U.S. Patent 10,287,631 covering duplex consensus sequencing, arguing that all 23 claims are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and Travers publications.
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
Microsoft and Dialect have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential information.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group settled their IPR disputes covering three patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before a trial was instituted.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,398,209 before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking trade‑secret protections under the CFR. The motion seeks Board‑only access and notification of any disclosure requests.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect reached a settlement that resolves disputes over patent 8,620,659 and other patents, leading to a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review before the Board makes an institution decision.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The Board granted the joint motion and ordered the settlement to remain confidential.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Guardant Health’s ’699 patent on duplex consensus sequencing is challenged by Tempus AI, which alleges the claims are obvious over earlier academic publications. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑27.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
TwinStrand Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 11,149,306 patent covering cfDNA sequencing methods, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Narayan and Schmitt. The petition also alleges examiner misdirection by Guardant. The case is pending institution.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of five prior‑art references and requests that the Board institute the trial.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
TwinStrand Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 29‑claim ‘306 patent on the basis that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Narayan and Schmitt, and that Guardant misled the examiner. The petition seeks cancellation of all claims.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI seeks to invalidate Guardant Health’s 30‑claim DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and NEB Expressions. The petition requests institution of the IPR.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Samsung and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 patent covering wearable optical health monitors. The petition asserts obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references and asks the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR petition challenges Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability.
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.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPR have far more prior‑art citations and often depend on new evidence such as expert testimony. The findings suggest that post‑grant challenges frequently introduce prior art outside the examiner’s original search scope.
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.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple (as petitioner) seeks to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel the claims.
Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
The USPTO Director denied Foleon Inc.’s request for review of the decision to deny institution of an IPR against Turtl Surf & Immerse Limited’s patent 12,118,290. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
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.
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Guardant Health’s cfDNA sequencing patent after Foundation Medicine (Petitioner) showed a reasonable likelihood of success on an obviousness ground over several prior‑art references.
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.