US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 43 of 291 · 8,722 total
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging Malikie's ’305 patent covering space‑time coding, asserting that claims 1‑3 and 6 are anticipated or obvious over several earlier patents. The petition argues no secondary considerations exist and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition challenging Netskope’s U.S. Patent 8,635,697 covering network‑based malware detection and OS fingerprinting. The petition asserts obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 by combining three prior‑art references. The case is pending institution.
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v.MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
Resonac files an IPR petition challenging MR Technologies' 11,138,997 patent covering perpendicular magnetic recording media. The petition asserts obviousness over Takenoiri (and Li for certain claims) and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑2, 4‑7, and 9.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Malikie Innovations’ dock patent, arguing they are obvious over the earlier Tsutsui Japanese application. The petition includes a technical expert declaration and asserts no discretionary denial applies.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging Malikie Innovations' 8,610,397 battery‑charger patent. The petition alleges obviousness over several Japanese and U.S. references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v.MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
Resonac has filed an IPR petition against MR Technologies' 12,020,734 patent covering perpendicular magnetic recording media, asserting that the claims are obvious over Takenoiri, Fullerton, and Shen references.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate six claims of Malikie Innovations' handheld directional‑input patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Dynamic Mesh Networks seeks a discretionary denial of Cisco’s IPR petition covering 21 claims of a 2008 wireless‑mesh patent, arguing settled expectations, weak invalidity grounds, and unfavorable Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.
Samsung Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all twelve claims of SnapAid’s ’452 patent covering real‑time image‑quality assessment. The challenger alleges obviousness, indefiniteness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of One‑E‑Way’s wireless audio patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a broken priority chain.
Clean Chemistry, Inc. v.Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. et al.
Clean Chemistry has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of Enviro Tech’s peracetic acid generation patent, alleging obviousness over Okano and, in combination, Withenshaw and Oringer.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Dynamic Mesh Networks' ’952 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art such as Ganz, Srikrishna, Bishop and the IEEE 802.11 standard.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
The PTAB issued multiple institution decisions, granting IPR for several cases including IPR2025-01516 after finding a reasonable likelihood of success. Other proceedings were denied based on discretionary or non-merits grounds.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Dynamic Mesh Networks filed a statutory disclaimer for all claims of U.S. Patent 11,368,537, prompting a petition for Director Review to block the institution of Cisco's IPR. The patent owner argues that the disclaimer bars any IPR under 37 C.F.R. §42.107(e).
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a response to Dynamic Mesh Networks’ request for director review, stating it takes no position and defers to the Director’s discretion.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Court decision.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 11 claims of Telcom Ventures' mobile‑payment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Dynamic Mesh Networks' ’537 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art mesh networking references. The petition outlines three grounds covering the full claim set and requests the Board to institute the review.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Marvell has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Credo’s ’111 patent covering high‑speed serial‑link equalization. The challenger relies on a combination of prior‑art references that teach known equalization, preset selection, and training techniques.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of Marlin’s 6,888,181 FinFET triple‑gate patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR because the patent owner had filed a statutory disclaimer covering all challenged claims and the entire patent term.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01303 involving Cisco Systems and Dynamic Mesh Networks after reviewing the merits. This allows the proceeding to move forward to a full trial.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01220, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to proceed against Credo Technology Group regarding patent 11032111.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenging patent 6888181, allowing Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited to proceed against Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and its combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 12,016,580 covering intravascular embolism treatment devices after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently promising.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Sonos’s audio patent.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of its IPR petition against Sonos’s audio‑player patent, alleging procedural violations of the APA, improper delegation of authority, and fee‑setting misalignment.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s 12,016,580 hemostasis valve patent, finding a reasonable likelihood that Imperative Care will prevail on at least one of the nine challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success sufficient. All nine claims are now under trial.
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.