US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 45 of 188 · 5,620 total
International Business Machines Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
IBM has filed a petition for inter partes review of VirtaMove’s U.S. Patent 7,784,058, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art relating to shared libraries and OS kernel functions. The petition details two grounds of obviousness and argues against discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ImberaTek’s ’201 patent on embedding components in a baseboard, asserting that the claim is anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should not deny institution and that all Fintiv factors favor proceeding.
GD Energy Products, LLC v.Kerr Machine Company
GD Energy Products successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Kerr Machine Company's pump patent, alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found it more likely than not that at least one claim would be unpatentable over various prior art references related to fluid end assemblies.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-00585, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any asserted claims were unpatentable. The denial hinged on ambiguity in claim language and lack of teaching in the prior art regarding material property calculations.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an IPR trial, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the petitioner, Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., against Stratasys, Inc. The grounds centered on 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 regarding data tag-based automation in 3D printing.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00413 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 9,045,101. The Board had previously instituted the review, but the parties seek early termination to conserve resources.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,045,101, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential while seeking to terminate the IPR over patent 9,045,101.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information, separate from the patent file.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,769,316, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR before the Board decided any merits.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 8,769,316. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed a post‑grant review petition against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘838 patent, asserting that 15 claims are obvious over prior art such as Kim and Lee. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Ultrahuman Healthcare PVT. LTD et al. v.Ouraring Inc. et al.
Ultrahuman Healthcare has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of Oura's finger‑worn health‑monitoring ring, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking §325(d) to avoid denial.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 9,045,101, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over existing driver‑authentication and vehicle‑monitoring technologies. The petition cites multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging four claims of Sinotechnix’s ’952 patent covering LCD backlight panels. The challenger asserts obviousness over the Hong and Lee publications, and over its own admitted prior art, and seeks institution of the review.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8‑17 of U.S. Patent 8,769,316, asserting obviousness over Felter, Finkelstein, and Therien references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and urges the Board to institute the review.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully instituted PGR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding a patent on 3D memory structures. The Board found that the petitioner sufficiently demonstrated obviousness over prior art references Kim and Lee for multiple claims. This moves the dispute into trial phase, raising significant stakes in semiconductor technology licensing.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to challenge Phelan Group's patent (9045101) in the PTAB, leading to institution of all 20 claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds against multiple prior art references.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon challenged the denial of institution of SoundClear’s noise‑reduction patent, arguing the PTAB’s “settled expectations” standard violated the APA and due process. SoundClear’s response contends the Deputy Director acted within statutory authority and that Amazon had proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen and Longhorn Automotive settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement is kept confidential per statutory provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Secure Communication Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential. The proceeding was terminated with no merits decided.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01050 after reaching a license agreement that settles all disputes over the ’344 patent. The Board has not yet instituted the review, making termination appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC entered a settlement that grants Wise a royalty‑free license to several patents, includes a covenant not to sue, and results in the dismissal of both the related lawsuit and the IPR proceeding.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Intercurrency Software’s 10,062,107 patent covering a consolidated multi‑currency trading platform after Wise PLC showed a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Intercurrency Software’s ’930 patent covering cross‑currency trading platforms, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one of the 15 challenged claims.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR filed by Intel (challenger) against AX Wireless’s ’272 patent covering OFDM header‑repetition techniques, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Hansen, WWiSE, and Choi references.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has requested Director Review of its IPR challenges (IPR2025-01008 and IPR2025-01009) against Palisade Technologies. The patent owner is limited to a 15‑page response within five business days and may not introduce new evidence.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron’s attempt to overturn a DRAM‑related patent is rebuffed as the PTAB finds its Director Review requests introduce prohibited new evidence and deceptive arguments. Patent Owner urges denial of the requests.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent. The petition stresses examiner error, misuse of settled‑expectations doctrine, and critical national‑security implications of Micron’s domestic memory‑chip expansion.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent, arguing examiner error and national‑security stakes. The petition challenges the Board’s reliance on “settled expectations” based solely on patent age.
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.