US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 42 of 291 · 8,722 total
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition challenging Guardant Health’s ’916 patent covering cfDNA‑based microsatellite instability detection. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of Schmitt, Forshew, Porreca, and Sacko references.
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
Excelliance Mos Corporation has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Force MOS Technology’s 7,629,634 trench MOSFET patent, asserting that all nine claims are obvious over the Hshieh and Uno prior‑art references.
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01422, allowing Caption Health to proceed with challenging University of British Columbia's patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01336 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner failed to meet the standard of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Court decision.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company filed a response urging the PTAB Director to deny AutoConnect’s request for review of a discretionary denial, emphasizing settled expectations from its long‑term Flextronics relationship and AutoConnect’s lapses in fee payments and commercialization. The filing argues that these factors preclude any expectation that the ’153 patent would be enforced against Ford.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
AutoConnect’s counsel urges the PTAB to deny Ford’s IPR petition, citing Ford’s contradictory indefiniteness arguments and settled‑expectations grounds. The brief references Board guidance that disallows “having it both ways.”
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. filed a Request for Director Review challenging a PTAB decision that granted institution based on a supplier‑based settled‑expectations theory. AutoConnect Holdings contends the Board relied on unsupported facts about Flextronics’ supply of infotainment systems and seeks reversal.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 23 claims of U.S. Patent 7,636,146, asserting that the LCD‑panel features are obvious in view of Kitawada and multiple secondary references.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’432 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payments. The challenger relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed a petition to institute an IPR against AutoConnect’s U.S. Patent 9,290,153 covering vehicle‑device discovery and personalization. The petition asserts that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art such as Moinzadeh, Clement, Rasin, Bosch, and Ghabra.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle infotainment patent (US 9,290,153) on the ground of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition proposes claim constructions for “daemon” and “access” and requests the Board to institute the review.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Institution of IPR2025-01383 was granted, allowing the trial to proceed after the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
GUANGZHOU EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc. et al.
Nine Stars Group filed a preliminary response opposing an IPR petition by Guangzhou EKO. The owner contends the cited Chinese patents are not prior art and, even if they were, do not make the ’796 claims obvious. The Board is urged to deny institution.
Netskope, Inc. v.K.Mizra LLC
Cisco, Forescout and HPE challenged K.Mizra’s 2012 network‑quarantine patent. The PTAB found the challengers failed to prove obviousness over prior art and upheld all claims.
Netskope, Inc. v.K.Mizra LLC
An exhibit submitted by Netskope shows K.Mizra's extensive litigation history, listing dozens of active and terminated district‑court cases. The document is used to underscore a pattern of settlements in the IPR challenge of patent 8234705.
Google LLC et al. v.ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1 and 5‑11 of ART Research’s ’442 patent covering video‑annotation interfaces, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’199 patent covering NFC‑based proximity detection and mobile payments, citing obviousness over Barnett, Waters, Wang and Sakamoto references.
Netskope, Inc. v.K.Mizra LLC
Netskope has filed a petition to institute an IPR against K.Mizra’s 8,234,705 patent, asserting that its network‑quarantine claims are obvious over three prior‑art references.
GUANGZHOU EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc. et al.
EKO petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Nine Stars’ ’796 patent covering a power‑saving, automatically opening trash bin. The petition relies on obviousness over Chinese references Zheng and Wang, asserting that the three‑state sensor control and sensor placement are well‑known.
GUANGZHOU EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01369 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. Patent 9,173,100 covering vehicle network security. The petition argues lack of priority support and obviousness over four prior‑art references. Ford seeks institution and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v.MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
Exhibit 1042 presents aggregate PTAB IPR statistics for hard‑disk patents, noting a 100% institution rate across 4,148 trials. Twenty percent of those trials produced mixed claim findings, while the majority favored the petitioner.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,529,305 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,115,731 B2, leading the Board to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding before trial.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,545,247 B2 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions.
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v.MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
Exhibit 1042 provides statistical insight into PTAB trial outcomes for hard‑disk patents, highlighting a high institution rate and a strong petitioner win record across §102 and §103 grounds.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute, leading the Board to dismiss the petitions and terminate the proceedings.
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v.MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
An exhibit summarizing PTAB IPR outcomes shows that all 4,148 trials were instituted, with 20% yielding mixed claim findings under §103, and 24% under §102 for a subset of 1,190 trials.
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v.MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
Resonac has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of MR Technologies' 9,928,864 patent covering multilayer perpendicular magnetic recording media, asserting that the claims are obvious over Takenoiri and other prior art.
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.