US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 56 of 188 · 5,620 total
uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
Force MOS Technology seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that found claims 1 and 3‑5 of its power MOSFET patent unpatentable. The Patent Owner contends the Board created new arguments, misapplied Fintiv guidance, and violated due‑process rights, urging reversal.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Court decision.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech defends its 2020 dual‑connectivity patent against OnePlus’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited references do not teach the claimed in‑sequence timer and that no obviousness motivation exists.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Longhorn Automotive’s 8,085,192 patent covering vehicle location data storage. The petition relies on prior‑art references Fish, Ziv, Gehlot and Stevenson to argue obviousness under § 103.
uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
uPI Semiconductor petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Force MOS Technology’s 2010 trench MOSFET patent, asserting that claims 1‑5 are obvious over Bulucea combined with four other references. The petition argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging Pantech’s 10,863,573 patent covering dual‑connectivity data handling. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑5 and 8‑12.
Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Ferid Allani's patent, focusing on web navigation claims. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability in several dependent claims but rejected it for the independent claims.
Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR against Ferid Allani's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus Technology successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Pantech Corporation's patent (10863573) regarding dual connectivity/PDCP sequencing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Koskinen, Sammour, and Deenoo for multiple claims.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,465 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to terminate the ongoing IPR. The Board is asked to seal the agreement from public disclosure.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00919 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 10,259,465.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of the Phelan Group’s driver‑authentication patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Murphy, Arshad, Adams, Wu and Petrik references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 2 and 3 of Resonant’s ’337 haptic‑feedback patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking to join Apple’s parallel IPR.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Phelan Group's driver safety patent (10,259,465), challenging all 20 claims based on obviousness and anticipation using the 'Murphy' prior art.
Kangxi Communications Technologies v.Skyworks Solutions Canada, Inc. et al.
Kangxi Communications challenges the USPTO’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against Skyworks’ 7,409,200 RF transceiver patent, arguing the agency’s new “settled expectations” doctrine is unlawful. The petition seeks Director Review to vacate the denial and have the case instituted on the merits.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Nivagen successfully opposes Sun Pharmaceutical’s request for a Director review of the institution denial, arguing that Sun raised new issues and failed to meet the rehearing standard. The Board affirms the Acting Director’s discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,855,720 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical has filed a request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging Nivagen’s orphan‑drug patent. The petitioner argues the denial improperly treated claim‑construction issues as discretionary and was issued by the wrong official.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The USPTO denied Sun Pharmaceutical's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00893, leaving the original decision that the IPR would not be instituted unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,855,720 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung and Hermes IP reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,855,720 covering a mobile device user interface.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00893 concerning patent 11878076 owned by Nivagen Pharmaceuticals. The Patent Owner may file a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence is allowed.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Nivagen’s ’076 patent covering lyophilized phenobarbital sodium formulations. The petition alleges obviousness over PIF, Parker, and West‑Ward references and anticipation/obviousness by the ’608 Publication, and challenges the patent’s priority date and written description support.
Kangxi Communications Technologies v.Skyworks Solutions Canada, Inc. et al.
Kangxi Communications has filed an IPR petition against Skyworks’ 7,409,200 patent covering multi‑die RF front‑end modules. The challenger alleges obviousness over Garlepp and over a Magoon‑Ngompe combination. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--
Clearwater Paper has filed a revised IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 and 11 of Graphic Packaging International’s biodegradable paper cup patent, asserting anticipation by Cleveland and obviousness via Nakagawa and Tanner. The petition requests institution of the review.
Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--
Clearwater Paper has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 and 11 of Graphic Packaging’s biodegradable cup patent, asserting anticipation by Cleveland and obviousness over Nakagawa and Tanner. The petition argues the prior art was not considered during prosecution and requests institution of the trial.
Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Clearwater Paper Corporation against Graphic Packaging International LLC, challenging claims related to biodegradable paper cups based on prior art references Cleveland and Nakagawa.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted institution of an inter‑partes review of The Noco Company’s 11,447,023 B2 jump‑starter patent after ADC Solutions Auto demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. All seven challenged claims will proceed to trial.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of claims 1‑11 of the ’203 battery‑charger patent and granted ADC Solutions Auto LLC’s motion to join the existing Deltran IPR, assigning it an understudy role.
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.