US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 43 of 286 · 8,574 total
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00893 concerning patent 11878076 owned by Nivagen Pharmaceuticals. The Patent Owner may file a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence is allowed.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Exhibit 1106 lists PTAB outcomes for TSMC-related IPRs, including the 2025 IPR2025-00828 concerning patent 7,579,227.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving a Pantech patent. The patent owner may respond within five business days, but no new evidence is allowed. The Director will determine whether to grant the review.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied a Director Review request, leaving the IPR against Shenzhen Shokz's bone‑conduction headphone patent instituted.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s dental densitometry patent covering claims 1‑24, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior‑art references such as Arai and Pelc. Discretionary factors, including a stay in a related district‑court case, led the Board to reject a denial request.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
The USPTO Director denied a request for review of the earlier decision denying institution of an IPR against Iono Pharma’s patent. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
Shenzhen FBTech and LiTime settled their IPR against LithiumHub's battery‑technology patent before trial, prompting the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and cloud‑migration startup VirtaMove settled their IPR dispute, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings before trial.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Mojawa challenges Shenzhen Shokz’s headset patent in an IPR. The petitioner argues the Patent Owner’s Director Review request fails to show any erroneous findings of fact, and the Acting Director’s referral was proper. The Board is urged to deny the request.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
Shenzhen Fbtech and Shenzhen Litime reached a settlement with LithiumHub Technologies, filing a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00822 under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
An email notifies parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876. It outlines a 15‑page response limit, a five‑business‑day deadline, and bars new evidence. The patent owner must respond within the stipulated timeframe.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
Shenzhen FBTech, Shenzhen Litime and LithiumHub Technologies filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreements as business‑confidential information, invoking statutory authority for confidentiality.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied ClearCorrect's petitions for review of institution decisions in five IPRs involving Align Technology patents, leaving the institution rulings intact.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
Cisco seeks rehearing of the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR against QPRIVACY’s privacy‑technology patent, arguing the Director ignored a Sotera stipulation that eliminates duplicate litigation.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC seeks a Director Review to vacate the institution of an IPR concerning Align Technology's orthodontic aligner patent. The request hinges on a revised Fintiv analysis, alleged re‑hash of prior art under §325(d), and failure to name all real parties in interest.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The USPTO denied ClearCorrect's request for Director Review of institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Align Technology's orthodontic aligner patent 11,648,090.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s dental aligner patent in a Director Review proceeding, arguing the patent owner’s request raises new RPI arguments and evidence that are barred. The petitioner seeks denial of the review.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s dental aligner patent in an IPR, and Align seeks to deny the Patent Owner’s Director Review request. The response argues the new RPI theory and trial‑date evidence are improper, and that the Board’s institution decision was correct.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
The PTAB notified the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876, setting a 15‑page limit and a five‑business‑day deadline for the Patent Owner’s response, with no new evidence allowed.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol challenged Credo’s patents in an ITC investigation involving mobile devices. The parties settled, and the Commission terminated the investigation after the ALJ approved the joint motion.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
Align Technology seeks Director review to vacate the institution of IPR2025-00817 against its intraoral scanner patent. The petitioner’s earlier trial‑date projection is shown to be inaccurate, the cited prior art does not teach the claimed limitation, and the petitioner failed to disclose all foreign real parties in interest.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR over Align Technology’s orthodontic aligner patent, arguing changed Fintiv factors, improper obvious‑to‑try reasoning, and undisclosed foreign parties.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four related IPRs, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings before trial. The settlement agreement was ordered confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The USPTO denied ClearCorrect’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs against Align Technology’s patents, leaving the institution rulings intact.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
The USPTO denied USAA's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00812, leaving the institution of the auto‑telematics patent intact.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s Director Review request, arguing the new RPI claim and trial‑date evidence are improper and that the Board’s institution decision was correct. The petitioner seeks denial of the Director Review.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The USPTO Director denied TSMC’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s patent, leaving the institution denial in place.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
The USPTO Director denied Google LLC's request for a director review of the institution decisions in two IPRs (patents 9,940,972 and 10,218,954) filed against Cellular South, Inc.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
An email notifies the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00864 and IPR2025-00865, outlining a 15‑page response limit and a five‑business‑day deadline, with no new evidence allowed.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
Belden and PPC Broadband seek Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against CommScope’s flexible‑bag patent. They argue the Board mischaracterized an interference search as prior art and ignored material examiner error.
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.