US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 54 of 188 · 5,620 total
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 23 claims of a satellite‑internet patent owned by Intellectual Ventures. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus Institute's patent 11,129,163 by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on prior art (Lee). The trial will proceed on all 16 challenged claims.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to convince the PTAB that Intellectual Ventures' claims regarding distributed OS image management were unpatentable. The Board denied institution, finding the petitioner did not meet the reasonable likelihood standard against combinations of prior art references.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of success for the petitioner in challenging numerous claims of bone conduction headphone technology based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the petitioner's definition of the level of ordinary skill, finding sufficient grounds to proceed with the IPR against Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to convince the PTAB that their challenged claims were unpatentable. The Board denied institution because the Petitioners could not provide sufficient rational underpinning against prior art references like Bruner and Clark, particularly regarding technical limitations.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Intel jointly request that their settlement with Advanced Cluster Systems be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion cites statutory authority to treat the agreement as business confidential information.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled their dispute, leading to the termination of 16 inter partes review proceedings covering multiple patents, including U.S. Patent 11,139,944. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, citing good cause and public policy favoring settlement.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Apex Beam’s 5G multi‑antenna patent (U.S. 11,063,727). The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00916 after reaching a settlement with patent owner Advanced Cluster Systems. The motion cites statutory authority and argues that termination conserves resources and supports settlement policy.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools, Generac and MWE have reached a settlement with Champion Power Equipment in IPR2025‑00805 and are asking the PTAB to keep the agreement confidential. The request cites statutory authority to treat settlement documents as business‑confidential information.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight and Champion Power filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file in IPR2025-00805.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Champion Power Equipment’s generator patent, addressing claim‑construction disputes raised by Harbor Freight and its co‑petitioners.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, while keeping the settlement agreements confidential. Generac Power Systems remains as the sole petitioner in the related proceedings.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent No. 12,091,692 covering engineered human PH20 hyaluronidase variants. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness of the claimed mutants.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC
Alliance Laundry Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of PayRange’s ‘608 patent covering offline cashless vending. The petition relies on obviousness over prior‑art retrofit devices (Breitenbach, Brown, Kaspar).
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 5G NR downlink control information patent, asserting that all claims are obvious over 3GPP standards and the Zhang patent.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems' high‑performance computing patent, alleging obviousness over earlier MultiMATLAB papers and IBM documentation.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of ACS’s ’621 patent covering parallel MATLAB execution on computer clusters, asserting obviousness over earlier Cornell publications and IBM documentation.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 5G multi‑antenna patent, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed a petition to invalidate 12,021,679, alleging that its claims are obvious over earlier MultiMATLAB publications and IBM documentation. The petition requests that the PTAB institute an IPR and cancel claims 1‑19.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems' 11,570,034 patent on the basis of obviousness over prior‑art papers describing MultiMATLAB and related IBM documentation.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of AutoConnect’s vehicle‑control patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Ikeda and Hendry publications.
Intel Corporation et al. v.USTA Technology, LLC
Intel and Lenovo have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 53 and 95 of USTA Technology’s RE47,720 patent, arguing obviousness based on a combination of prior‑art references covering OFDM/MIMO techniques.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight has filed an IPR petition challenging Champion Power’s 2019 dual‑fuel engine patent, asserting that all 24 claims are either obvious or anticipated by a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent on hyaluronidase polypeptides under grounds of enablement and obviousness. The PTAB granted institution, finding the claims cover a vast genus that requires undue experimentation to fully enable.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel Corporation and Advanced Micro Devices challenged the patentability of Advanced Cluster Systems' cluster computing patents before the PTAB. The Board issued an institution decision, finding sufficient evidence that the claims are obvious over prior art references like Menon and Trefethen. This moves the dispute toward a full trial on obviousness grounds.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel Corporation et al. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc., challenging 30 claims of patent 11570034 based on obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner could prevail in its challenge to cluster computing technology.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its IPR against Apex Beam Technologies LLC regarding claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11139944. The Board found that the combination of 3GPP standards documents renders the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to institution of trial.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the multi-fuel generator patent (10393034). The Board adopted Petitioner's claim construction regarding 'gaseous fuel,' which was critical to establishing obviousness and anticipation grounds.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB Director denied institution of IPRs against Champion Power Equipment because Generac Power Systems presented inconsistent claim construction arguments in related litigation versus before the Board. This decision reinforces precedents requiring petitioners to maintain a single, consistent interpretation of patent claims.
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.