US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 40 of 188 · 5,620 total
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Director denied institution for several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, including IPR2025-01126. This procedural denial means no trial will be held on the challenged patents.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 11,589,970 dental mouthpiece patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Park, Baughan, Johnson, Black and Hirsch.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Solmetex’s 2023 intraoral mesh patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over five earlier 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 ten claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 12‑21 and argues that the patent owner broadened claim scope after product launch.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging CardWare’s ’538 patent covering mobile payment tokenization. The petition asserts that claims 19‑30 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 25 claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition outlines eight grounds and requests institution of the review.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging seven claims of CardWare’s ’520 patent covering contactless mobile ATM transactions. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Gill, Smith, Kay, and Gomez references under §103 and seeks institution of the review.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 18 claims of CardWare’s ’538 patent covering tokenized NFC payments. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 10,339,520, challenging all 17 claims as obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds covering the full claim set and seeks institution of the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 14 claims of U.S. Patent 11,664,926, asserting they are obvious over the Chu standard and IEEE 802.11ax draft specifications. The petition relies on 102(a) prior art predating the critical date and seeks institution of the IPR.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
The PTAB denied Ascentcare Dental Products' IPR petition against Solmetex, LLC's dental device patent due to procedural timing issues. The Board found the patent was a post-AIA patent and the petition was filed too early.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01165, allowing Samsung Electronics to proceed with challenging Wilus Institute's patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments settled their IPR disputes with Champion Power Equipment, resulting in the termination of the proceedings against them while Generac remains as a petitioner.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight and Champion have filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their Settlement Agreement as business‑confidential information, keeping it separate from the IPR file for patent 11,143,120. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and seeks limited disclosure only to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight and co‑petitioners sought Director Review of a denied institution decision for a multi‑fuel generator patent. The Board found no inconsistency with the earlier ’034 decision and denied the request, leaving Champion Power’s patent intact.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering video‑frame grouping, finding a reasonable likelihood that Amazon’s challenges based on MPEG‑1, Kim, and Yagasaki would succeed.
Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.
Starbucks and Pi‑Design have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,695,486 and jointly seek to keep the settlement confidential under statutory provisions.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The USPTO denied Generac's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01121, leaving the decision not to institute the IPR intact.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo withdrew its IPR against Resonant Systems’ U.S. Patent 8,860,337 covering gaming controller haptic feedback. The Board granted the motion, terminating the proceeding before any institution or claim analysis.
Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.
Starbucks and Pi‑Design have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,695,486. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo filed a notice of intent to dismiss its IPR petition against Resonant Systems’ vibration‑module patent, citing the Board’s earlier institution of a separate petition that already invalidated the claims.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools, Champion Power Equipment and other petitioners have reached a settlement in IPR2025-01121. The parties request that the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, and MWE seeks to withdraw from the proceeding.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Petitioners seek Director review after the USPTO denied institution of a multi‑fuel generator patent, arguing the decision conflicts with a prior institution of the parent ’034 patent. They assert the same obviousness grounds apply and that the denial is arbitrary and capricious.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo filed a motion to withdraw its IPR against Resonant Systems’ 8,860,337 patent. The Board has authorized the filing, and the patent owner does not oppose the withdrawal.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Court decision.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE petition the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of Champion Power’s multi‑fuel engine patent, citing extensive prior‑art references. The petition argues anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103 and seeks institution of the IPR.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2 and 3 of Resonant Systems’ linear vibration module patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking cancellation of the claims.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01121 in the dispute between Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power Equipment because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
Microsoft and Affirmed Networks successfully challenged Lemko’s 7,855,988 patent, with the PTAB finding all asserted claims unpatentable due to anticipation by the Flore publication.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MOSAID Technologies has filed a Director review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 7,051,306 patent. The request contends that Infineon’s petition inconsistently handles claim constructions already litigated in district court, violating Board guidance and warranting reversal of the institution.
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.