US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 46 of 291 · 8,722 total
Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.
Zesty.ai has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 11,195,058, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Gross publication and other prior art.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging VB Assets’ ’249 patent covering multimodal natural‑language responses, seeking cancellation of all 28 claims on obviousness grounds.
Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH
Albany International petitions to invalidate Voith Patent's 2018 paper‑machine fabric patent, asserting that the claimed outside‑placed sheet plies are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Champion Power's off‑board fuel regulator patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a §112(f) deficiency in claim 6.
Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01367, allowing Albany International Corp. to challenge Voith Patent GmbH's patent 9982388.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge (IPR2025-01326) brought by Regions Bank against United Services Automobile Association's patent 12159310.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Be Smarter, LLC challenges Yondr’s ’788 patent covering lockable cases for electronic devices, asserting lack of novelty and obviousness over earlier locking‑case references. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑8.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Be Smarter has filed a PTAB petition seeking cancellation of Yondr’s lockable‑case patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over earlier security‑case publications. The petition lists seven claims and three statutory grounds.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Be Smarter and Yondr settled their post‑grant review dispute over patent 12,133,078. The parties filed a joint motion, and the PTAB terminated the proceeding without a final written decision.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Yondr and Be Smarter have settled their dispute over Yondr's patents covering cell‑phone usage control. The settlement includes product discontinuation, mutual releases, and dismissal of the pending district‑court action and PGR proceeding.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Dr. Gregory D. Buckner, an expert for Be Smarter, submits a declaration asserting that the ’788 patent’s claims 1‑4 and 6‑8 are anticipated or obvious over earlier security‑case designs such as Samuel, Shin, and Simpson. He finds no secondary evidence of non‑obviousness and supports the petition for inter‑partes review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01190 over U.S. Patent 11,641,661, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet issued a final decision, and the parties seek to end the proceeding and keep the agreement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01187, citing a settlement agreement and requesting the agreement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP have reached a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,057,896. The parties jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, and the Board is asked to grant the termination.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Hannibal IP asks the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR on its 5G beam‑management patent, arguing the prior‑art challenge is weak, Samsung knew of the patent for years, and the parallel litigation will finish before a PTAB decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01187 concerning U.S. Patent 11,057,896. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP entered a settlement, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR challenging patent 11,641,661. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Hannibal IP seeks a discretionary denial of Samsung’s IPR on its 5G beam‑management patent, arguing the prior‑art challenge is weak, Samsung had prior knowledge, and the district‑court trial will precede any PTAB decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01190 and keep their settlement agreement confidential.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
Be Smarter has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Yondr’s ’078 patent covering locking cases for mobile devices, asserting anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of patent‑eligible subject matter.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 72 claims of CardWare’s ’634 patent, which covers a mobile payment card that generates limited‑duration payment numbers. The petition relies on obviousness arguments over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Hannibal IP’s 5G‑related ’896 patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over Guo, Intel, ZTE and the 5G‑Standard. The petition requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 1‑16 of Hannibal IP’s 5G beam‑management patent (US 11,641,661). The petition relies on Guo, Intel’s 3GPP proposal, and the 5G‑Standard to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00070 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of success. This allows the patent challenge to proceed to a merits trial phase.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR case involving Samsung Electronics against Hannibal IP LLC regarding patent 11641661. The petitioner successfully met the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01187, allowing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. to proceed against Hannibal IP LLC's patent 11057896.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung Electronics and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR disputes before trial, resulting in the termination of seven pending IPRs, including IPR2025-01350 covering patent 11,740,801.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have reached a confidential settlement and jointly filed a motion to terminate the IPR on patent 11,740,801. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding without a merits decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian Memory’s ’801 patent covering SSD metadata and maintenance functions. The petition asserts obviousness over several prior‑art references and seeks a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims.
BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD. v.Bishop Display Tech LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Bishop Display Tech’s LED driver patent (U.S. 8,093,830). The petition asserts that prior art references Ghanem, Nishimura, and Tripathi render all five claims obvious under §103. The Board is asked to institute the review and find the claims unpatentable.
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.