US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 49 of 286 · 8,574 total
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted Imperative Care’s petition to institute inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑9.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Nutanix successfully defended the Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Tessell, arguing that assignor estoppel does not apply and that there is no statutory right to institution.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care's petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical's embolism‑treatment patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The petition relied on anticipation and obviousness over Garrison and other references, but lacked sufficient particularity.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Nutanix successfully defended the Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Tessell, arguing that the statute grants no right to institution and that the Director acted within discretionary authority.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that Imperative Care proved all nine claims of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 B2 hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable, finding the term “filament” must be flexible and that the prior art renders the claims obvious.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MES, Inc. seeks Director Review to block the PTAB's institution of an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing that the existing MDL already handles the dispute efficiently. The petition highlights duplicative effort and potential abuse of discretion by the Board.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,933,370, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR for IPL and WPL. The Board is asked to dismiss those parties under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
Innoscience seeks to invalidate all 17 claims of Infineon’s GaN power transistor patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of Nega, Roberts, Otremba and Liu references. The petition also challenges discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d).
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks a Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against patent 8,907,425. The patent owner argues the denial was proper and TSMC’s request is procedurally defective. The review request remains pending.
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.
MidAmerican Energy settled its IPR against BirchTech’s ’370 patent, prompting the Board to terminate the case for MidAmerican while the proceeding remains active against PacifiCorp.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
PTAB issued a mixed final decision on TSMC’s challenge to patent 8907425, invalidating some claims while upholding others.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus Technology seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its 4G/5G uplink synchronization patent. The petition argues the “settled expectations” rule was misapplied and that material examiner error and the breadth of related patents merit Board review.
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.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks a Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial, arguing that the ’425 patent was issued with material errors and that enforcing it would harm U.S. national‑security and economic interests. The petition emphasizes settled expectations and examiner mistakes.
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.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
An email from the PTAB Director informs the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-00682 and IPR2025-00683, outlining a 15‑page, five‑day response window and prohibiting new evidence.
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.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the one involving Audio Pod IP’s patent 8,738,740. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes intact.
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.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Petitioner OnePlus has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00783, asking the PTAB to reconsider the institution decision; the Patent Owner may respond within five business days.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm jointly filed a request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The filing seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
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.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,140,612 B2, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker filed an unopposed motion to dismiss an IPR against Viking Arm before the Board had considered the merits, citing a settlement agreement and CFR provisions to preserve resources.
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.