US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 42 of 188 · 5,620 total
Amazon.com, Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 40 claims of VB Assets’ ’385 patent covering voice‑enabled shopping. The petition relies on eight §103 obviousness grounds using prior art such as Li, Chen, Barnes, Kennewick and Lee.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s U.S. Patent 10,536,714 covering motion‑vector prediction methods. The petition asserts obviousness over earlier video‑coding publications (Rusert, Karczewicz, Lin) and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑30. The case is pending institution.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nokia Technologies' U.S. Patent 8,175,148 covering video‑encoding quantization techniques. The petition asserts obviousness over MPEG‑1 and H.263 standards and requests cancellation of all 23 claims.
Amazon.com, Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
The USPTO Director denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition filed by Amazon.com against VB Assets' patent 11087385.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01153, allowing ASUSTeK to challenge Nokia's patent 10536714 after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
The PTAB held that Google’s challenge to Valtrus’s 7,748,005 patent succeeded, finding all twenty claims unpatentable for lack of written‑description support and obviousness over the McCarthy application and Gien micro‑kernel reference.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
The PTAB held that Google proved all 21 claims of Valtrus’s ’454 patent are obvious over Colby, Eilert, and Jindal, rendering the entire patent unpatentable.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
Google’s IPR against Valtrus’s 6,728,704 B2 patent was decided with all 23 challenged claims upheld. The Board found the prior‑art Bushee not anticipatory and rejected obviousness arguments over Voorhees, Tso, and Koppel.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination before the proceeding is instituted.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑01108 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
The PTAB held that Google’s obviousness challenge succeeded, finding all 19 claims of Valtrus’s ’764 patent unpatentable over the Li and Edlund prior‑art references. The decision also denied Google’s motion to exclude exhibits and granted motions to seal.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia have reached a settlement and jointly request the PTAB to treat the agreement as confidential and terminate the IPR. The motion relies on statutory provisions protecting settlement confidentiality.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of a video‑compression patent owned by Advanced Coding Technologies, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Phek, YuChuan, He and Martins. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Valtrus’s ’967 patent covering redundant power supplies. The petition relies on anticipation by Zak and obviousness over Susong, Chang, and Edelen, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Solventum Corporation v.Wound Healing Technologies Corp.
Solventum Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 13 claims of Wound Healing Technologies' wound‑dressing patent. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Argenta, Hu, Biggie and Lockwood.
ROBE lighting s.r.o. v.Guangzhou Haoyang Electronic Co., Ltd.
ROBE Lighting petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 13 claims of Guangzhou Haoyang’s ‘373 patent covering a self‑testing stage light fixture, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Jurik luminaire patents.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple IPR petitions, including one involving Google LLC and Valtrus Innovations Limited. No trial will proceed on these matters.
Solventum Corporation v.Wound Healing Technologies Corp.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01042, allowing Solventum Corporation to challenge Wound Healing Technologies Corp.'s patent 10639404 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
ROBE lighting s.r.o. v.Guangzhou Haoyang Electronic Co., Ltd.
ROBE lighting s.r.o. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Guangzhou Haoyang Electronic Co., Ltd.'s patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness regarding light fixture sealing systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the '373 patent is unpatentable based on prior art reference Jurik.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms seeks cancellation of all twenty claims of SitNet’s ’454 patent, asserting obviousness over Amidon and the Wong‑Gogic combination. The petition includes a supporting expert declaration and argues discretionary factors favor institution.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’932 patent covering targeted advertising in situational networks. The PTAB found all ten claims (12‑21) unpatentable as obvious over Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones. The decision clears Meta’s path for its ad‑tech offerings.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’682 patent covering situational networks. The PTAB found all twenty claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art. The decision finalizes the IPR with a sweeping cancellation.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 16 claims of SitNet’s ’345 patent, arguing they are obvious over Gage, Mitchell, Shida, and Sinha. The petition emphasizes strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’454 patent, leading the PTAB to find claims 1‑9 and 20 unpatentable and cancel claims 10‑19.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of SitNet’s U.S. Patent 12,245,325. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over two prior‑art groupings—Amidon‑Issa and Wong‑Gogic‑Kraft—citing earlier IPR decisions that invalidated a related ’454 patent.
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition against Brain Corporation’s 10,823,576 patent, asserting that all 36 claims are anticipated by earlier SLAM publications and obvious when combined with other robot‑mapping references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
The PTAB denied the institution of IPR2026-00101 against SitNet's patent 12245325. The denial was based on Meta Platforms failing to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
The USPTO Director issued a partial Institution Decision for multiple IPRs, granting review in five proceedings while denying it in four others based on the likelihood of prevailing.
INTELLIGENT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT CORP. v.Cisco Technology, Inc., et al.
Intelligent Protection Management Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Cisco’s ’293 video‑superposition patent, arguing they are obvious over the Tysso system and a GIMP user manual. The petition cites detailed expert testimony and prior‑art references to support the unpatentability argument.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,668,420, asserting obviousness over multiple hydraulic fracturing references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
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.