US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 291 · 8,722 total
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed a petition for inter partes review of Moskowitz Family’s U.S. Patent 10,064,738 covering spinal intervertebral fusion devices. The challenger alleges that the parent application Moskowitz 440, together with Waugh (and Michelson 019), makes the asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition seeks cancellation of 16 claims.
IPG Photonics Corporation v.Trumpf Laser- Und Systemtechnik GMBH
IPG Photonics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of TRUMPF’s ’054 laser‑fiber patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art fiber‑laser references. The petition outlines four grounds covering the full claim set.
SEG Solar, Inc. et al. v.--
SEG Solar and affiliated entities have filed an IPR petition challenging Jinko's 2023 solar‑cell patent, asserting that 18 claims are obvious over multiple Chinese patents and academic papers. The petition lays out detailed claim‑by‑claim mappings to prior art and seeks cancellation under § 318(b).
X Corp., v.Search & Share Technologies, LLC
X Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of the ’952 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Malla, Walther, and Smadja references under §§ 102 and 103.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovation Limited et al.
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 14‑21 and 24‑28 of U.S. Patent 7,057,509, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art systems for object monitoring and tracking.
Hyundai Motor America, Inc. v.Germ Dome Industries LLC
Hyundai Motor America has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Germ Dome’s UV sanitizing patent, alleging anticipation by a 2003 Japanese patent and obviousness over that reference alone and in combination with a later U.S. application. The petition relies on extensive claim‑by‑claim comparisons to prior art.
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of WeCrevention’s DRAM patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness based on multiple prior‑art references that disclose low‑voltage operation and embedded display‑port use.
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging WeCrevention’s DRAM patent (U.S. 10,998,017), asserting that claims 1‑2 are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art DRAM disclosures and that the input/output unit is a §112(f) means‑plus‑function term.
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of WeCrevention’s DRAM patent (U.S. 12,154,652), seeking to invalidate claims 1‑6 on anticipation and obviousness grounds using multiple prior‑art references.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 11 claims of Marlin’s 2011 metal‑gate transistor patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 31 claims of WeCrevention’s high‑speed memory chip patent. The petition argues that each claim is obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering memory modules, ASIC controllers, and 3‑D stacking techniques.
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. et al. v.TVnGo Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of TVnGo’s RE50,399 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple interactive‑TV references. The petition requests that all challenged claims be found unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. et al. v.TVnGo Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of TVnGo’s RE50328 interactive‑TV patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition challenges 19 claims covering overlay graphics and TV‑Internet integration.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Surrozen Operating, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,297,278 covering broad tetravalent Wnt‑surrogate antibodies. The petition asserts lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and anticipation by the Garcia publication.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition against IngenioSpec’s ’901 patent covering smart eyeglasses, asserting that all 59 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and requesting cancellation of the entire patent.
Bicara Therapeutics, Inc. v.The John Hopkins University et al.
Bicara Therapeutics has filed a PTAB Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of Johns Hopkins' 2025 antibody‑fusion protein patent, alleging lack of written description, lack of enablement, and improper claim dependency.
Dolby Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS et al.
Dolby Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 9,185,268, which covers methods for color correcting display content. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute the review.
Biocon Biologics Limited et al. v.--
Biocon has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate all 38 claims of Regeneron’s ‘036 anti‑VEGF eye‑treatment patent, alleging obviousness over prior art and lack of written description.
Viant Technology LLC et al. v.--
Viant, Mediaocean and AppLovin have filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑34 of U.S. Patent 11,949,962, asserting that the combination of two prior publications makes the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 10,603,183 covering spinal intervertebral cage devices. The challenger alleges obviousness over prior art references Moskowitz 440, Waugh, and Michelson 019 and argues a priority-chain error that renders the references prior art under §102(b).
Resmed Corp. v.Fractus, S.A.
Resmed has filed a petition to cancel all 20 claims of Fractus’s ’677 antenna patent, alleging lack of novelty, obviousness, and insufficient written description for 4G standards. The petition relies on prior‑art references Dou, Ciais‑Quadband, Nakano, and Baliarda‑543.
Klein Tools, Inc. et al. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
Klein Tools has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of U.S. Patent 11,857,064 covering a belt‑mounted tool pouch. The challenger alleges anticipation by Albrecht and obviousness over combinations of Albrecht, Gabriel, and Glock, and requests the Board to institute the review.
Google LLC v.Clear Imaging Research LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Clear Imaging’s 32‑claim video‑stabilization patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing claim‑term constructions. The petition seeks cancellation of all claims.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.AQ Corporation
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corporation’s U.S. Patent 11,728,564 covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition asserts that all 22 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.AQ Corporation
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corp's ’564 smartphone antenna patent, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering dual‑side coil layouts, NFC, MST and wireless charging. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑20 under 35 U.S.C. §311.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.AQ Corporation
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corp’s U.S. Patent 11,495,875 covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious in view of multiple prior‑art references teaching dual‑sided coil layouts, via connections, and parallel circuitry.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Pogona, LLC
Merck has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 11,058,757, alleging that the pneumococcal vaccine claims are anticipated or obvious in view of Porro, Mekalanos, and Siber. The petition argues examiner error and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Beatbot Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging Zodiac Pool Systems' 11,880,207 patent covering autonomous pool cleaning robots. The petition alleges obviousness over several prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of fifteen claims.
Klein Tools, Inc. et al. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
Klein Tools has filed an IPR petition challenging Milwaukee Electric’s 2023 tape‑measure patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over earlier tape‑measure patents. The petition seeks cancellation of all 12 claims.
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.