US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 47 of 188 · 5,620 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus requested permission to address recent PTAB director‑review decisions and submit new evidence for five IPRs against Samsung. The Director denied the request, leaving the IPRs proceeding without the proposed extensions or additional evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus asks the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against its Wi‑Fi patents, arguing that the patents are not a diverse range of subject matter. The petition challenges the discretionary denial rationale used by the Board.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics petitions to invalidate ten claims of Wilus Institute’s Wi‑Fi patent, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references covering EDCA parameters, backoff timers, and MU transmission techniques.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus regarding a wireless communication patent, challenging claims 1-10 based on obviousness. The Board found sufficient evidence that Samsung could prevail.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 12,290,418 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 25 claims covering the isolation mouthpiece.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Dr. Brian P. Black submits a declaration supporting Ascentcare’s IPR petition, asserting that the ’969 dental isolation mouthpiece patent is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references. He targets claims 1‑4 and 6‑19, concluding they are unpatentable.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to review U.S. Patent 11,589,969, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier dental mouthpiece patents. The petition outlines five statutory grounds under §§102(b) and 103, targeting claims 1‑4 and 6‑19 for cancellation.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against SoundClear’s audio‑processing patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Deputy Director properly applied the settled‑expectations discretion and that no APA or due‑process violations occurred.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon seeks Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule, arguing it exceeds statutory authority and violates the APA. The petition contends the rule is arbitrary, retroactive, and unconstitutional.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs involving SoundClear Technologies' patents. The Board found the petitions did not meet the required standards.
Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc. v.Quanterix Corp.
Fujirebio Diagnostics petitions to invalidate Quanterix’s 2022 patent on tau‑protein blood assays, asserting that the method is obvious over existing single‑molecule array publications and an earlier tau‑diagnostic patent. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel the challenged claims.
Tesla Inc. et al. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging Granite Vehicle Ventures’ ’004 patent covering self‑driving vehicle safety features. The petition lists eleven obviousness grounds based on combinations of prior‑art references. The case is pending before the PTAB.
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
Caption Health, Inc.'s IPR challenge against the University of British Columbia's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the combination of prior art references failed to teach or suggest critical elements related to quality assessment in echocardiographic image analysis.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
Amazon and AWS filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR challenge to DivX's video‑transcoding patent (U.S. 10,715,806). The Board was asked to terminate the proceeding, citing good cause and efficiency.
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
National Steel Car seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its freight‑car patent, arguing the petitioner lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that continuing would waste Board resources.
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
FreightCar America filed an authorized response opposing National Steel Car's request for Director Review of the IPR institution decision on U.S. Patent 8,132,515. The petitioner contends the request is procedurally improper, relies on new evidence, and is speculative. The Board is urged to deny the request and continue the IPR.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Lattice Semiconductor and Technicolor have settled their dispute, executing a settlement agreement and requesting the court to vacate the upcoming case management conference. The settlement includes payment and a stipulation of dismissal, effectively ending the litigation.
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
FreightCar America filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of U.S. Patent 8,132,515, asserting that the hopper‑car features were obvious in view of historic rail‑car literature. The petition relies on multiple early‑20th‑century references and expert testimony to demonstrate lack of novelty.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
Amazon has filed a petition to invalidate DivX’s 10,715,806 video‑transcoding patent, asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art such as Sambe, Vetro, and Gu. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary statutes.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Intel, Dell and Dell Technologies have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of General Video's '437 patent covering serial video/audio transmission, arguing obviousness over Kim, Shin and Myers. The petition relies on expert testimony and cites multiple district‑court cases involving the patent.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Intel and Dell have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate General Video’s ’437 patent covering robust subset encoding of video and audio data over a serial link. They argue the claims are obvious over prior patents by Kim, Shin, and Myers.
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
The PTAB instituted review of IPR2025-01047 regarding the hopper car design patent (8132515). The Board found Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 44 challenged claims based on obviousness (§ 103).
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
FreightCar America, Inc. successfully challenged National Steel Car Limited's patent claims in an IPR proceeding. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on independent claim 2 based on obviousness over prior art references. This decision keeps the dispute alive for trial on several key claims.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines petition the PTAB to invalidate Intellectual Ventures' 8027326 patent covering Wi‑Fi channel bonding, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Gardner and Mori.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to institute their IPR against Intellectual Ventures' patent, as the Board found they could not meet the burden of proof regarding claim construction and obviousness. The denial hinged on the Petitioner’s failure to clearly articulate how it would construe key indefinite terms in its petition.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that instituted review of its eight‑year‑old CDN patent (U.S. Pat. 10,057,322). Sandpiper CDN, LLC argues the Board ignored settled‑expectations doctrine and misapplied discretionary‑denial standards.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Kaifi LLC and Amazon reached a settlement in principle, prompting a joint motion to stay all court deadlines while the parties finalize their agreement and prepare dismissal filings.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google responded to Sandpiper CDN’s Director Review request, asserting that the patent owner forfeited its settled‑expectations argument and that the Fintiv factors support referral. The Board had already instituted the IPR, and the Director’s review was denied.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Sandpiper CDN's patent 10,057,322. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of a discretionary denial and institution denial across several IPRs, including IPR2025-00978 covering patent 12,028,793. The Board affirmed the original decision, leaving the patent dispute unresolved at this stage.
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.