US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 48 of 291 · 8,722 total
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company filed a response urging the PTAB Director to deny AutoConnect Holdings’ request for review of a prior discretionary denial. Ford relies on long‑standing settled expectations from its relationship with Flextronics and AutoConnect’s lapse of maintenance fees to argue the request should be denied.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s 9,020,697 patent covering vehicle‑network access based on device location. The petition asserts that all 21 claims are obvious over three prior‑art references (Clement, Ghabra, Lickfelt) and provides claim constructions. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of CardWare’s ’579 patent covering limited‑duration numbers for contactless payments. The petition asserts obviousness over a suite of prior‑art NFC payment references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 21 claims of AutoConnect’s vehicle‑access patent, asserting that the invention was obvious over three prior‑art references (Clement, Ghabra, Lickfelt). The petition includes claim‑construction arguments and seeks institution of the IPR.
Apple Inc v.1LSS Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 11 claims of 1LSS’s magnetic‑wallet patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition relies heavily on the Board’s earlier findings and detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01342 after finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Apple Inc v.1LSS Inc.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01180, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 7,724,818 B2 video‑coding patent after Amazon demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on eight claims. The Board rejected discretionary denial arguments and will proceed to trial on all challenged claims.
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nokia's 7,724,818 video‑codec patent. The petition asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial. Institution of the review is requested.
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
Fresh Products sent a formal notice terminating its manufacturing agreement with Sanastar’s WizKid Products, citing the contract’s 90‑day termination clause. The exhibit was filed in IPR2025‑01339 as supporting evidence.
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s U.S. Patent 7,724,818, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over prior‑art video‑coding references Au, VCEG‑N52 and Sriram.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Nokia’s ’714 video‑compression patent, asserting that earlier coding methods render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
Fresh Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Sanastar’s urinal anti‑splash patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier splash‑prevention devices such as Fushimi, Brown, Valadez, and Wise.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted settlement motions filed by Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, terminating the IPRs against them while the case continues for Generac Power Systems, Inc.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments, Harbor Freight Tools, and Generac have filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement for Patent 10,221,780 confidential and separate from the patent file. The request cites statutory confidentiality provisions and seeks limited disclosure only upon proper request.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments, Harbor Freight and Generac have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Champion Power Equipment’s dual‑fuel lockout switch patent, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references and that key claim terms lack proper structure.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01185 after a merits review, finding the petitioner could not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institutional decisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review to overturn the institution of XiFi Networks’ patent, finding no good cause for extending the deadline and noting inconsistent claim‑construction positions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs brought by Samsung, finding no good cause for extending the deadline and requiring consistent claim construction positions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPR and PGR petitions, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent PTAB precedent. The request asks the Director to terminate the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR and PGR challenges, arguing that Samsung’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions in district court undermine their invalidity arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review, leaving Samsung’s institution of multiple Wi‑Fi patents intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks Director Review to overturn eleven IPRs and three PGRs against Samsung, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate PTAB policy and merit vacating institution.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Google (as petitioner) successfully challenged claim 12 of Dialect’s ’160 patent, which covers speech‑recognition handling of natural‑language utterances. The Board held the claim obvious over the Kennewick and Ross references and rendered it unpatentable.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect settled the IPR concerning patent 7,634,409 before the Board could institute a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted and the settlement agreement was kept confidential.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPRs have unusually high numbers of prior‑art citations and often rely on new references introduced during the post‑grant proceeding. Expert testimony and novel evidence play a key role in the Board’s unpatentability findings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under trade‑secret rules. The request cites statutory authority to limit public disclosure of the agreement.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
The USPTO denied Microsoft’s petition to institute an Inter Partes Review of Dialect’s patents, citing the age of the patents, subsidiary ownership issues, and a parallel district‑court case.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect settled their IPR dispute over Patent 7,917,367 before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft’s petition for an inter partes review of several older patents was denied on discretionary grounds. The Board cited the subsidiary’s prior ownership, the patents’ age, and a parallel district‑court case as reasons to avoid duplication of effort.
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.