US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 50 of 291 · 8,722 total
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric filed Director Review requests for IPR2025-01322, -01323, and -01324. The PTAB Director instructed MES, Inc. to respond within five business days, limited to 15 pages and no new evidence.
LiveIntent, Inc. v.DATONICS, LLC
LiveIntent has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of DATONICS’s ’445 patent on the ground of obviousness. The petition relies on the Beyda and Herz publications as prior art.
JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd. et al. v.First Solar, Inc.
JinkoSolar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of First Solar’s 9,130,074 patent, alleging lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on Tamura, Borden, Rana and combinations with Gan, Kwark, and Swanson.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.--
Reolink Innovation filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of its ’655 peer‑to‑peer searching system patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness based on five prior‑art publications. The petition enumerates eight grounds covering §§102 and 103, mapping each claim to the cited references.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric has filed an IPR petition challenging 25 claims of the ’225 patent covering mercury removal from coal‑flue gas. The petition alleges lack of written description and asserts that six prior‑art references anticipate or render the claims obvious. Institution of the IPR is sought.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric Company has filed an IPR petition challenging MES’s 10,933,370 patent on mercury‑removal methods, asserting lack of written description and obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑6, 8, 11, 14‑15.
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One seeks IPR of Wapp Tech’s 2014 patent covering mobile photo‑editing apps, arguing the ten claims are obvious over prior art such as Lee, Jiang, Tran, and Poulin‑910.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric has filed an IPR petition challenging 28 claims of the ’430 mercury‑removal patent, asserting lack of written description and that the claims are anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
LiveIntent, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
LiveIntent petitions to invalidate 42 claims of Intent IQ’s ’398 patent, asserting that the invention is obvious in view of prior‑art profiling systems (Eldering, Banga) and IPv6 standards. The petition relies on expert testimony and RFC publications to support a §103 obviousness argument.
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
3D Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Intrepid Automation’s ’511 patent covering DLP‑based additive manufacturing. The petition relies on five grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art references Shkolnik, Sekine, Greene, Jørgensen and Yi. The Board is asked to institute the review and not deny the petition discretionary.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.--
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Reolink Innovation against ThroughTek Co. Ltd., challenging 19 claims of patent 9727655 based on obviousness over prior art combinations like Schwan and Lee.
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for five IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01042, IPR2025-01241, IPR2025-01264, IPR2025-01153, and IPR2025-01242) after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell defends its ’650 Patent on personalized content delivery, arguing that Samsung’s cited prior art (Shindo, Sasaki, Futa, McClellan) does not teach the claimed one‑to‑one content‑to‑device mapping. The response also challenges the petitioner's expert credibility and claim construction.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s preliminary response argues Samsung’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art (Shindo, Sasaki, Futa, McClellan) does not disclose the patented association‑information features. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,709,772 B1 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, ending the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell filed a sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,812,646, asserting that the petition is vague, lacks claim constructions, and misstates the patent owner’s position on the “sleep state.” The patent owner urges the Board to deny institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell contests Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,812,646, arguing that the cited prior art does not disclose the three distinct display modes claimed. The patent owner seeks denial of institution, asserting no reasonable likelihood of success for Samsung.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian have entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01321 under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The motion stresses public‑policy benefits of early settlement and resource conservation.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s preliminary sur‑reply rebuts Samsung’s IPR petition, asserting that the patent’s “association information” requirement is not satisfied by Samsung’s prior‑art references. The patent owner emphasizes the need for a storage element that actually stores the association data, which Samsung’s citations lack.
Election Systems & Software, LLC v.Hart InterCivic, Inc.
Election Systems & Software petitions to invalidate Hart InterCivic’s 12,125,319 patent, asserting that its claims are abstract, obvious over prior‑art voting‑machine technology, and lack written description for recursive features.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 11,277,650. The petition argues the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references—Shindo, Sasaki, and a combination of Futa and McClellan—under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition requests that all challenged claims be found unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian Memory’s ’772 SSD management patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks to invalidate the claims covering zone‑based flash memory techniques.
Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v.Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al.
Cytek Biosciences has filed an IPR petition challenging 14 claims of Beckman Coulter’s 2023 flow‑cytometer patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art WDM designs by Goodman and Oostman.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of Maxell’s ’646 patent, arguing that the claimed smartphone remote‑control features are obvious over prior‑art devices such as Esaka, Guihot, Bandyopadhyay and Sharif‑Ahmadi.
Election Systems & Software, LLC v.Hart InterCivic, Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for PGR2025-00066 after reviewing the merits. The denial was based on the petitioner failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The PTAB denied institution for Samsung against Maxell's patent 10812646 after a merits review, finding the petitioner failed to meet the likelihood of prevailing standard.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01308 involving Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Maxell, LTD., allowing the dispute over patent 11277650 to proceed to trial.
Guangzho EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. (aka EKO Development Ltd.) et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc.
Petitioner EKO seeks IPR of Nine Stars’ 10,822,165 B2 automatic trash‑can patent, asserting that a 2014 Chinese filing (Wang) anticipates and makes obvious all 24 claims. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering grouping of image frames in video coding. The petition asserts that claims 8‑11 are obvious over MPEG‑1 and the Kim patent, and claim 9 over MPEG‑1 combined with Yagasaki. No claim constructions are proposed.
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.