US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 44 of 291 · 8,722 total
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
The PTAB notified Google and Sonos that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-01213. Sonos may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Sonos filed a response defending the PTAB Director’s denial to institute Google’s IPR over patent 10,541,883, arguing the Director’s discretion is unreviewable and that procedural requirements were met.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inari Medical’s 12,016,580 clot‑removal patent. The petition relies on Garrison and several other catheter‑related references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
TikTok Inc. and Bytedance Ltd, Bytedance Pte. Ltd., Bytedance Inc., TikTok Ltd., and Heliophilia Pte. Ltd. v.DiStefano Website Innovations, LLC
TikTok has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 29 claims of DiStefano’s reissued ’971 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Block, Arnold, and Arora. The petition includes a detailed claim construction for “reciprocal site.”
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sonos’s U.S. Patent No. 10,541,883. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Cheshire, Meenan, and Spurgat under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s FinFET fabrication patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Xu, Lin, and Brask under 35 U.S.C. §103.
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
3D Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑20 of Intrepid Automation’s ’301 patent covering multi‑projector DLP additive manufacturing. The petition relies on three grounds of anticipation and obviousness using prior art from Shkolnik, Sekine, and Greene.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01265, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This notice also details multiple other institutional decisions across various proceedings.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01264, allowing the challenged claims to proceed to trial based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01241 and several other proceedings, allowing the merits phase of review to proceed.
Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart v.Fall Line Patents, LLC
The PTAB found claims 1,2,5,19‑22 of the ’748 patent unpatentable for obviousness over prior art, while claim 7 remained patent‑eligible.
Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart v.Fall Line Patents, LLC
Instacart’s challenger Maplebear has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 3, 4 and 6‑15 of the ’748 data‑management patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Mojawa filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Shenzhou Shokz’s bone‑conduction headphone patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for multiple claims in the audio device patent (11197084). The Petitioner successfully argued that combining prior art references, particularly Li and Fujita, renders the claimed earphone structure obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp challenges the patent owner’s request for Director Review of IPR2025‑00718, arguing procedural errors, misstatements in prosecution, and that the PTAB is the proper forum. The petition seeks denial of the Director’s discretionary denial under §315(d).
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Board terminated the IPR against MidAmerican Energy Company after the parties settled, but the case continues against PacifiCorp.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint motion to treat their settlement agreement as confidential and to terminate the IPR concerning patent 10,926,218. The request relies on statutory provisions for business‑confidential treatment of settlement agreements.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a referral decision, arguing that proceeding with the IPR would duplicate the ongoing MDL concerning mercury‑control patents and waste resources. The brief cites efficiency concerns and prior PTAB rulings to request denial of institution.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB terminated the IPRs against MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement with BirchTech, leaving the case open only against PacifiCorp.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,926,218. They jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review as to WEC, citing 35 U.S.C. § 317. The Board is asked to dismiss WEC from the proceeding.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information under applicable statutes.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. jointly moved to terminate an IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board must decide whether to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MES, Inc. seeks Director Review to block the institution of an IPR covering mercury‑control technology, arguing that the matter is already efficiently litigated in an MDL. The petition claims the Board’s proceeding would duplicate effort and waste resources.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech Corp. jointly moved to have their settlement agreements kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations. The Board is asked to treat the agreements as business‑confidential information, limiting public access.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes and jointly moved to terminate the IPR as to Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light, arguing that no merits decision has been made and that settlement serves public policy goals.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp challenges the Director’s referral of its IPR on a mercury‑control patent, arguing the PTAB is the appropriate forum and requesting denial of the Director Review. The response highlights prosecution misstatements, lack of settled expectations, and inefficiencies in the MDL.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under federal rules.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements sealed as business‑confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related Board rules.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility companies and BirchTech settled multiple IPRs covering power‑grid patents. The Board treated the settlement agreements as confidential and terminated the IPRs as to the settling petitioners, leaving the remaining petitioners in the proceeding.
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.