US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 59 of 291 · 8,722 total
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Petitioners seek Director review after the USPTO denied institution of a multi‑fuel generator patent, arguing the decision conflicts with a prior institution of the parent ’034 patent. They assert the same obviousness grounds apply and that the denial is arbitrary and capricious.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo filed a motion to withdraw its IPR against Resonant Systems’ 8,860,337 patent. The Board has authorized the filing, and the patent owner does not oppose the withdrawal.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Court decision.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE petition the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of Champion Power’s multi‑fuel engine patent, citing extensive prior‑art references. The petition argues anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103 and seeks institution of the IPR.
Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.
Starbucks has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Pi‑Design’s French‑press patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art coffee‑maker references.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2 and 3 of Resonant Systems’ linear vibration module patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking cancellation of the claims.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense have filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,050,321 video‑coding patent, asserting that all 11 claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Kim and Adolph.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01121 in the dispute between Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power Equipment because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO denied institution for several IPR petitions filed by Snap Inc. against Nokia Technologies Oy, meaning no trial will proceed.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
Microsoft and Affirmed Networks successfully challenged Lemko’s 7,855,988 patent, with the PTAB finding all asserted claims unpatentable due to anticipation by the Flore publication.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MOSAID Technologies has filed a Director review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 7,051,306 patent. The request contends that Infineon’s petition inconsistently handles claim constructions already litigated in district court, violating Board guidance and warranting reversal of the institution.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB notified the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-01171 over patent 7,051,306. The petitioner has five business days to submit a limited response; no new evidence is allowed.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon contests MOSAID’s late Director Review request, asserting that claim‑construction issues were disclosed before the IPR petition and can be reconciled with district‑court constructions. The petitioner offers stipulations to avoid any inconsistent outcomes.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate Ascletis’s U.S. 12,234,236 patent covering small‑molecule GLP‑1R agonists. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and challenges the examiner’s narrow allowance. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
Infineon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 51 claims of MOSAID’s ’306 power‑management patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering power islands and dynamic voltage/frequency scaling. The petition follows a prior IPR that was instituted and later terminated.
LiveIntent, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
LiveIntent petitions the PTAB to invalidate AlmondNet's U.S. Patent 8,494,904 covering user profiling for targeted ads, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Robinson, Jaye, Coleman). The petition seeks institution despite anticipated Board discretion issues.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 27 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 11,328,286 covering a dynamic, limited‑use payment card system. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues that printed‑matter limitations lack patentable weight. The case is pending institution.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging all 23 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent No. 10,810,579 covering mobile‑payment tokenization. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple NFC‑payment references such as Collinge, Lin, and Phillips. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Viant Technology LLC et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
Viant Technology and LiveIntent petition PTAB to invalidate AlmondNet's 2015 ad‑targeting patent, arguing obviousness over Burdick and a Burdick‑Grannan combination. The petition seeks institution of the IPR.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
UPPAbaby has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Baby Jogger’s stroller‑seat attachment patent (U.S. 8,955,869) on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
UPPAbaby has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate seven claims of Baby Jogger’s 9,403,550 stroller‑seat‑attachment patent, arguing obviousness over Liao, Stopp, Chen and Sweeney references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,621,360, asserting that the claims covering microstructured photodetectors are obvious over prior art such as Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1,3,5‑6,8‑9.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 72 claims of CardWare’s ’634 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokenization. The petition argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
Microsoft and AT&T have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Lemko’s 8,310,990 patent covering distributed mobile architecture handover, asserting that the claims are anticipated by the earlier Flore publication.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00057, allowing the challenger to proceed with trial against patent 12234236.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR against MOSAID's patent, ruling that Infineon failed to adequately explain conflicting claim construction positions taken in district court litigation.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01171, allowing Infineon to challenge MOSAID's patent 7051306.
Viant Technology LLC et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, including IPR2025-01163. No trial will be instituted in these proceedings.
LiveIntent, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for the IPR challenge against AlmondNet's patent 8494904, meaning no trial will proceed on this matter.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review proceedings, meaning no trials will proceed on the challenged patents.
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.