US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 53 of 188 · 5,620 total
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against TJTM’s ’853 patent. The company alleges the USPTO retroactively applied new rules, violating due process and the APA. Google seeks vacatur of the denial and referral to the Board.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,459,863 covering electric‑powered multi‑plunger fracturing pump systems. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references, chiefly Fischer, to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of TJTM Technologies’ ’853 patent, which covers a mobile‑device “inactive mode” for reducing driver distraction. The petition relies on obviousness over Cazanas, Frye, and Zhou and argues there is no basis for discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent 9,619,578. The petition argues the Board abused discretion by misapplying settled‑expectation doctrine and ignoring examiner error. Samsung seeks reversal and institution of the review.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn the referral and institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent. The company argues the PTAB misapplied Fintiv factors and that the parallel district‑court case makes the IPR redundant. It seeks termination of the proceeding under § 314(a).
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology challenges Stratasys’s request for Director Review of an IPR on patent 9,168,698, arguing the referral decision was proper and no new grounds exist. The response stresses correct application of the Fintiv factors and a broad stipulation that avoids duplicate litigation.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR over U.S. Patent 8,222,723 following a settlement of their broader dispute. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB could institute a trial. The Board granted the joint motions, treated the settlement as confidential, and terminated the proceedings.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied the petitioner's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Stratasys’s 3D‑printing patent (US 10,556,381). The institution decisions therefore remain in force.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential, keeping it separate from the patent file and limiting public access.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
An email informs the petitioner that a Director Review request has been filed in the Stratasys 3D‑printing IPR, restricting the petitioner’s reply to a 15‑page, no‑new‑evidence submission within five business days.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Stratasys’s 3‑D‑printer force‑detection patent (US 9,168,698) on multiple obviousness grounds, citing Warren, Eshed, Calderon, RepRap forum disclosures, and Napadensky. The petition also addresses discretionary issues under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.
Linkplay Technology petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sonos’s ’883 patent covering audio device network setup, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial does not apply.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Stratasys's 3D printing patent (9168698) after finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail over Warren. The trial will address obviousness claims based on various prior art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Wilus's request to address recent director review decisions and submit new evidence for five IPRs involving Samsung. Wilus sought a short extension to incorporate claim‑construction arguments from pending district‑court litigation, but the Director upheld the existing schedule.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
Geotab seeks rehearing of the USPTO Director’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition, arguing the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and exceeded statutory authority. The petition highlights conflicts with the Celgene precedent and procedural violations under the APA.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung contests the patent owner’s arguments that the Lee and Choudhury references do not teach the claimed BSS‑color disabling features. The petitioner seeks denial of the patent owner’s Director Review request, keeping the IPR instituted.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
The USPTO denied Geotab’s request for rehearing of its IPR challenge against Fractus’s telematics patent, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution refusal.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of institution decisions in multiple IPRs, leaving the institutions in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus Institute requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Samsung’s Wi‑Fi BSS‑color patent, arguing the Board misinterpreted prosecution statements and ignored key arguments about the Lee and Choudhury references.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Shenzhen Shokz filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the institution of an IPR that challenges its modular earphone patent. The owner argues the petition relies on prior art already considered by the examiner, making discretionary denial appropriate.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Mojawa challenges Shenzhen Shokz’s headset patent in an IPR. The petitioner argues the Patent Owner’s Director Review request fails to show any erroneous findings of fact, and the Acting Director’s referral was proper. The Board is urged to deny the request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of the ’163 Wi‑Fi patent, asserting they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering BSS‑color techniques. The petition seeks institution under 35 U.S.C. §103 and argues PTAB discretion should not block the review.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
Geotab seeks to invalidate 44 claims of FRACTUS’s 8,456,365 antenna patent, arguing that the Tran and Teng references make the claims obvious. The petition details claim constructions and argues against discretionary denial of institution.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
Geotab petitions the PTAB to institute IPR on FRACTUS’s 8,810,458 patent covering antenna placement in portable devices, asserting that the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition argues both §103 obviousness and §102 prior‑art grounds and challenges any discretionary denial of institution.
Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.
Straumann USA petitions the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Smart Denture Conversions' dental implant patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Koito Manufacturing filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of the ’803 patent, alleging lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple automotive headlamp references. The petition lists eight grounds covering anticipation and obviousness, and requests the Board to institute the review.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 48 claims of its reissued RE48,438 patent covering GPU‑based artificial neural‑network processing. The challenger relies on four prior‑art references—Kirk, Oh, Tamura, and GPU Gems—to argue obviousness under § 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle‑personalization patent, arguing it is anticipated or obvious over earlier car‑control technologies such as Yasui, Morehouse, Ikeda, and Zellner.
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.