US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 49 of 188 · 5,620 total
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Collabo Innovations Inc.
Qualcomm has filed a petition for inter partes review of Collabo Innovations' ’575 microcontroller patent, seeking cancellation of nine claims on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on a series of prior‑art references that allegedly disclose all claim limitations.
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. v.RE Secured Networks, LLC
OmniVision has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RE Secured Networks' 6,838,651 CMOS image sensor patent. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Isogai, Inuiya, Neter, and Fossum.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of W&Wsens Devices’ ’543 patent covering a single‑chip microstructure‑enhanced photodetector. The challenger relies on the Kuboi publication to argue anticipation and obviousness. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB institution decision in this IPR found that the petitioner met its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1. The dispute centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding medical devices used for aspirating clot material from blood vessels.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung Electronics successfully navigated a PTAB institution challenge against CM HK LIMITED regarding motion sensing technology. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims based on obviousness (103).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Wilus Institute of Standards, challenging 14 claims related to LTE/5G signal processing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that key claims are unpatentable based on prior art references like Josiam and Kim.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for Samsung's IPR against Wilus, citing the petitioner's failure to justify inconsistent claim construction arguments made in district court and before the Board.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
In an IPR, the PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable under §§102 and 103, finding the petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness arguments persuasive.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care’s petition to review Inari Medical’s 11,744,691 patent covering catheter‑based embolism removal. The Board found the petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of the 31 challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care secured institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent, covering claims 1‑9, on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on claims 1‑9.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 patent covering a vacuum aspiration system with hemostasis valve. Petitioner Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, especially claim 1, based on obviousness over Garrison, Schaffer and other references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care seeks an IPR of Inari Medical’s ’333 patent covering aspiration systems for pulmonary embolism and DVT, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the Board to institute review of 36 claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care successfully met the institution burden in its IPR against Inari Medical's '333 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims. The Board found that combining prior art references like Laub and Garrison renders the claimed thromboembolism treatment systems obvious under 103.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus’s request to overturn a patent challenge on LTE/5G technology was denied. Pantech successfully defended the Director’s discretionary denial, emphasizing lack of examiner error and settled industry expectations.
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.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00720 and related cases, leaving the original denial in place.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed a petition for inter partes review of Pantech’s U.S. Patent 10,764,803 covering enhanced uplink operation in soft handover. The challenger asserts lack of written description and obviousness over several 3GPP standards and Ericsson documents, seeking cancellation of eight claims.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The PTAB issued an institution decision in the OnePlus vs. Pantech IPR, finding reasonable likelihood that certain claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board's analysis hinged on detailed claim construction and the obviousness arguments presented against various 3GPP specifications and industry standards like Ericsson.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight and MWE have settled their IPR against Champion’s dual‑fuel selector switch patent and request the Board keep the settlement confidential.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted settlement motions, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC while leaving Generac Power Systems as the remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements are to be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s institution decision in IPR2025‑00951, citing claim‑construction issues. The petition was filed by Generac and co‑petitioners against Champion Power’s generator patent.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, citing business‑confidential treatment under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit access to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
Aquestive Therapeutics seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Iono Pharma’s epinephrine prodrug patent. Iono Pharma argues the request fails statutory standards and should be denied.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
Aquestive Therapeutics petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a discretionary denial of institution for an IPR on its epinephrine prodrug patent, arguing factual errors and improper reliance on settled‑expectation criteria.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
The USPTO Director denied a request for review of the earlier decision denying institution of an IPR against Iono Pharma’s patent. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
Aquestive Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Iono Pharma’s ‘437 patent covering sublingual/ buccal epinephrine prodrugs. The challenger relies on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Truelove patents, an academic paper, and the Almoazen paper.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The Director denied institution of IPRs against Champion Power Equipment because Generac Power Systems presented inconsistent arguments regarding the claim terms 'desired pressure' and 'selector switch' in parallel litigation.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac Power Systems successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Champion Power Equipment, Inc., regarding a dual-fuel generator control system. The Board found sufficient showing of obviousness and anticipation across multiple grounds using prior art references like DuroMax and De Vries.
FLSmidth Inc. v.Metso Finland Oy (formerly known as Metso Outotec (Finland) Oy)
FLSmidth has filed an IPR petition challenging all 26 claims of Metso's fluid‑bearing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner erred by not fully evaluating the combination of GB384, DE364 and other patents.
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.