US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 58 of 188 · 5,620 total
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD’s petition for rehearing of the USPTO’s discretionary denial in IPR2025-00862 was denied. The Board upheld the original decision denying institution of the challenge against Advanced Cluster Systems’ patent.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,082,289 B2, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have moved to withdraw their IPR challenge to SiOnyx’s ‘359 patent after the related district‑court case was dismissed. The patent owner does not oppose the withdrawal, and the Board has not yet decided on institution.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their GPU‑related patent dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have filed a petition to invalidate SiOnyx’s 83‑claim image‑sensor patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over a broad set of prior‑art references. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim mappings and argues that the Board should institute the IPR.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of the ’768 patent, asserting they are obvious over earlier Cornell research and IBM documentation. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate given the strong merits and AMD’s AI semiconductor interests.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Exhibit 1106 compiles PTAB final decision outcomes for TSMC, highlighting that many of its IPRs resulted in all claims being deemed unpatentable.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks PTAB reversal of a Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR against its 28nm‑3nm process patents, arguing national‑security stakes, settled expectations, and material examiner errors. The petition cites extensive prior art to show lack of patentability under §§102 and 103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC opposes Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.'s request for a Director review of U.S. Patent 7,579,227, arguing the Board correctly exercised discretionary denial. The response highlights procedural deficiencies, meritless new‑facts claims, and unsupported national‑security arguments.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of an institution decision that allowed review of an expired Sandpiper CDN patent. The petition argues the Board ignored settled‑expectation precedent and that the petition fails the likelihood‑of‑success threshold.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
In IPR2025-00829, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding at least one claim of U.S. Patent 7,923,764 unpatentable. The challenger TSMC and patent owner Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC presented arguments under §§102/103, resulting in a mixed outcome.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for a review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Sandpiper’s CDN patent (9,021,112). The institution of the patent remains in effect.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,037,618 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition argues the claims lack written description, are not enabled, and are obvious over prior patents and publications.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck challenges Halozyme’s broad PH20 hyaluronidase patent, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness. The petition seeks to invalidate all 40 claims.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’180 patent, asserting obviousness over numerous high‑k gate dielectric references. The petition also argues that the Board should not apply discretionary denial. The case is pending institution.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s 2015 CDN patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s '618 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness regarding modified PH20 polypeptides. The PTAB adopted a functional claim construction requiring hyaluronidase activity for the claimed genus.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully had its IPR institution decision upheld, advancing the case against Sandpiper CDN, LLC's patent 9021112. The Board found that Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG Sauer and True Velocity jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal law, citing its sensitive business content and prior precedent.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG Sauer and True Velocity have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,561,543.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s dental aligner patent in an IPR, and Align seeks to deny the Patent Owner’s Director Review request. The response argues the new RPI theory and trial‑date evidence are improper, and that the Board’s institution decision was correct.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG SAUER and True Velocity settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,561,543, leading the Board to dismiss the proceeding before trial.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The PTAB affirmed Align Technology’s patent on a dual‑shell dental sheet composition, finding none of the challenged claims unpatentable after a detailed obviousness analysis involving Hinz, Durasoft data sheets, and Sun.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
Align Technology requests a Director Review to vacate the institution of IPR2025‑00820, arguing that the district court trial date now precedes the final written decision deadline, that the petition merely repeats prior‑art already considered, and that the petitioner failed to disclose all real parties in interest.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied ClearCorrect's request to review the institution decisions in several IPRs involving Align Technology's orthodontic patents, leaving the institution rulings in place.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s ’517 patent covering a GUI‑based DNS policy system. The petition argues the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references and that the examiner never considered these references. Institutional factors are presented to favor instituting the review.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Align Technology’s 11,154,384 patent covering multilayer dental aligners. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Tadros, Kalili, Porter, Wen, and Texin 990R.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG Sauer has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of True Velocity’s polymeric ammunition cartridge patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines seven statutory grounds under §§ 102 and 103 and requests institution of the review.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks to invalidate Align Technology's 2023 patent on multilayer dental aligners, arguing that all claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Kalili, Porter, Texin 990R, Wen, and Tadros. The petition requests the PTAB to institute review and cancel the challenged claims.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks PTAB review of Align Technology's 10,973,613 patent covering multilayer dental aligners, arguing all 22 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition cites Tadros, Kalili, Porter, Wen, and Texin 990R as teaching the same polymer layers and configurations.
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.