US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 5 of 291 · 8,722 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.AQ Corporation
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corporation’s ’011 patent covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6 on obviousness grounds, citing three prior‑art combinations. No claim construction or Board decision is included in this filing.
Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Beatbot Technology petitions the PTAB to cancel all five claims of Zodiac Pool Systems' autonomous pool‑cleaner patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and lack of written description for key limitations.
Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Beatbot Technology petitions the PTAB to invalidate Zodiac Pool Systems' pool‑cleaner patent, arguing that claims 1‑3 are obvious over a combination of existing underwater cleaning robots and lack written‑description support for key controller features.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that claims 1‑17, 19, 21‑27, 29 and 30 of Headwater Research’s ’733 patent are unpatentable. Google and Samsung successfully proved obviousness over the MMS 3GPP spec and the Ogawa encryption device.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of a vehicle gear‑selection patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Headwater's 9,232,403 patent covering a secure MMS-enabled mobile device, arguing obviousness over TS‑23.140, Ogawa, and other references.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of U.S. Patent 11,932,230, which covers vehicle gear‑selection control. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Strategy Inc v.Web3AI Technologies, LLC
Strategy Inc (formerly MicroStrategy) has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Web3AI's U.S. Patent 9,218,574 covering a user interface for machine‑learning results. The challenger alleges obviousness over a combination of four prior‑art references (Johnson, Lin, Purcell, Mihaylov) under § 103. No institution decision has been made yet.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of its vehicle gear‑selection patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of U.S. Patent 12,338,71, asserting that the vehicle gear‑selection and unparking features are obvious over Joos and its combinations with Bettger, Kischkat, and Hoop. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of the ’457 vehicle‑gear‑selection patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition cites expert testimony and seeks a finding of unpatentability under § 103.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 24 claims of the ’184 vehicle gear‑selection patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists thirteen grounds covering combinations of Joos with Kischkat, Hoop, Allexi, Bettger, and Bayer.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging the vehicle gear‑selection control patent owned by Bulletproof Property Management, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists six §103 grounds covering all 20 claims. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,974,910 clot‑treatment patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple obviousness grounds.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently persuasive. All 36 challenged claims are now under review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care seeks to invalidate nine claims of Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 hemostasis valve patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple prior‑art references.
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 intravascular embolism treatment devices after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim. The decision centers on claim constructions of the “filament” element and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care secured an institution of inter partes review against Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent covering claims 1‑9. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness grounds involving Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims. The dispute centers on the definition of “filament” and reliance on prior art Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Imperative Care’s petition for inter partes review of Inari Medical’s ‘580 patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing under § 314(a).
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Biofrontera Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Biofrontera’s nanoemulsion patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Uhlmann and Palazzolo prior‑art references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inari Medical’s 12,239,333 patent covering clot‑removal devices. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness of the asserted claims. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
DraftKings Inc. et al. v.WinView IP Holdings, LLC
DraftKings has filed a petition to invalidate multiple claims of WinView’s ’189 fantasy‑sports patent, asserting that the invention is anticipated or obvious over earlier patents. The petition requests cancellation of 16 claims under §§102 and 103.
DraftKings Inc. et al. v.WinView IP Holdings, LLC
DraftKings has filed an IPR petition to invalidate 16 claims of a fantasy‑sports patent owned by WinView IP Holdings, asserting that the invention is already disclosed in earlier patents and publications.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 8,076,735, asserting that all six claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references Chuang, Lin, and Brask. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Moskowitz Family’s spinal fusion patent, asserting that Palmatier anticipates the invention and that combined references render the remaining claims obvious.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of the ’284 spinal fusion patent owned by Moskowitz Family. The challenger relies on Palmatier, Gordon and Glerum as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness.
Plaid Inc. v.Secure Authentication Technologies LLC et al.
Plaid Inc. and Secure Authentication Technologies LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR 2026-00157 after a Utah district court invalidated the patent, citing 35 U.S.C. §317.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB, in a Director Review, denied institution of Samsung's inter partes review against Headwater's patent, citing the timing of a parallel court proceeding as a decisive discretionary factor.
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.