US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 41 of 188 · 5,620 total
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB notified the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-01171 over patent 7,051,306. The petitioner has five business days to submit a limited response; no new evidence is allowed.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon contests MOSAID’s late Director Review request, asserting that claim‑construction issues were disclosed before the IPR petition and can be reconciled with district‑court constructions. The petitioner offers stipulations to avoid any inconsistent outcomes.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate Ascletis’s U.S. 12,234,236 patent covering small‑molecule GLP‑1R agonists. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and challenges the examiner’s narrow allowance. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 51 claims of MOSAID’s ’306 power‑management patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering power islands and dynamic voltage/frequency scaling. The petition follows a prior IPR that was instituted and later terminated.
LiveIntent, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
LiveIntent petitions the PTAB to invalidate AlmondNet's U.S. Patent 8,494,904 covering user profiling for targeted ads, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Robinson, Jaye, Coleman). The petition seeks institution despite anticipated Board discretion issues.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 27 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 11,328,286 covering a dynamic, limited‑use payment card system. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues that printed‑matter limitations lack patentable weight. The case is pending institution.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging all 23 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent No. 10,810,579 covering mobile‑payment tokenization. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple NFC‑payment references such as Collinge, Lin, and Phillips. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
UPPAbaby has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Baby Jogger’s stroller‑seat attachment patent (U.S. 8,955,869) on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
UPPAbaby has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate seven claims of Baby Jogger’s 9,403,550 stroller‑seat‑attachment patent, arguing obviousness over Liao, Stopp, Chen and Sweeney references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,621,360, asserting that the claims covering microstructured photodetectors are obvious over prior art such as Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1,3,5‑6,8‑9.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 72 claims of CardWare’s ’634 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokenization. The petition argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
Microsoft and AT&T have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Lemko’s 8,310,990 patent covering distributed mobile architecture handover, asserting that the claims are anticipated by the earlier Flore publication.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00057, allowing the challenger to proceed with trial against patent 12234236.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR against MOSAID's patent, ruling that Infineon failed to adequately explain conflicting claim construction positions taken in district court litigation.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple IPR proceedings, including one involving Apple Inc. and CardWare Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patents.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of Solmetex’s dental mouthpiece patent, alleging obviousness, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The petition leans on three earlier patents and expert testimony to argue the claims are unpatentable.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Director denied institution for the IPR proceedings involving Aerin Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., halting further trial.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Fractus’s ’149 patent covering smartphone antenna designs, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed a Petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO Director’s denial of institution for patent 7,804,891, alleging statutory and procedural violations.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR on a communication‑quality patent. The patent owner argues the Director’s authority is exclusive and the petition’s APA claims are meritless. The Board is urged to deny the Director Review request.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE settled their IPR against Champion Power's dual‑fuel selector switch patent. They filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Petitioners jointly request that the settlement agreement for the Dual Fuel Selector Switch patent be kept confidential and separate from the PTAB file.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision to deny institution of IPR2025-01161 involving patent 7,804,891. The denial upholds the earlier institution refusal.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging all 36 claims of Nokia’s ’267 patent on the ground of obviousness, relying on two prior‑art video‑coding applications (Karczewicz‑I and II). The petition argues that the combination of these references teaches the same higher‑precision motion‑prediction techniques.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
The PTAB denied institution for the petitioner's IPR challenge against a wireless device patent related to antenna complexity. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to combine prior art references, specifically because such combinations violated critical spatial diversity requirements of the patented invention.
Evenflo Company, Inc. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01140 and related proceedings after determining the petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard. This moves the cases forward to merits review.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap’s IPR petition challenging Nokia’s video‑compression patent was instituted, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 23 claims based on MPEG‑1 and H.263 prior art.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,175,148 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, which the Board granted, also ordering the settlement documents to be treated as confidential.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Nokia’s video‑encoding patent, alleging obviousness over MPEG‑1 and H.263 standards. The petition details how each claim limitation is disclosed in the prior‑art references.
Almendra Pte. Ltd. et al. v.Fienile Agronecócios LTDA
Almendra Pte. Ltd. has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,089,543 B2, asserting indefiniteness, lack of enablement, abstract‑idea ineligibility, and obviousness over Rosen and Richardville. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑7.
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.