US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 59 of 188 · 5,620 total
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect seeks an IPR to invalidate Align Technology’s 11,648,090 patent covering multilayer dental aligners. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over prior‑art polymer aligner references. No institution decision has been made yet.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review on all claims, arguing that Align Technology's dental aligner patents are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103. The Board accepted the petitioner's arguments regarding material substitutions (Tritan for polycarbonate) and combining prior art references into a multilayer device.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for ClearCorrect against Align Technology regarding a dental aligner patent (11,648,090). The Board found sufficient evidence that the challenged claims would be obvious over prior art references.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR proceedings against Align Technology's patent (10973613) after Petitioner ClearCorrect demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that combining prior art references like Tadros, Kalili, and Texin 990R was motivated by POSITA with reasonable expectation of success.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Sandpiper CDN, LLC regarding patent 8645517. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references. This moves the dispute into a trial phase at the PTAB.
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corp.’s U.S. Patent 10,728,436 covering robot‑based object detection. The petition alleges obviousness over prior publications on edge detection (Rosenstein, Canny, Xu) and depth‑map techniques (Nourbakhsh, Tsutsumi). The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple seeks a PTAB Director review to overturn the institution of an IPR filed by Samsung against a Wi‑Fi patent, arguing settled expectations, lack of diverse subject matter, and Samsung’s inconsistent indefiniteness positions.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Samsung’s 10,313,077 B2 Wi‑Fi patent after Apple’s petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claim 1. All 14 claims are now subject to review on obviousness grounds.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines sought to invalidate a load‑balancing patent, but the PTAB denied institution, finding the obviousness arguments insufficiently specific. The petition relied on Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski references, which the Board said did not adequately teach the claimed features.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The USPTO denied Apple’s request for Director Review of institution decisions in six related IPRs, keeping the original institution rulings intact.
Wella Operations US LLC v.Olaplex, Inc.
Wella Operations seeks a post‑grant review of Olaplex’s ’225 patent, arguing the claims are too broad, lack enablement, written description, and are indefinite.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of HBCU Messaging’s ’827 patent covering random‑number‑derived message transmission. The petitioner contends the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art messaging references and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
LiftWerx USA Inc. v.Liftra IP ApS et al.
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2026-00102 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent No. 11,176,538 covering limited‑duration payment numbers. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Gomez, Phillips, Casey, and Law, and argues that discretionary denial is not appropriate.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of CardWare’s ’520 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokens. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Haemonetics Corp. seeks Director review to vacate the institution of an IPR filed by Terumo BCT over its plasma‑apheresis patent. The Owner argues the petitioner’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions and failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) warrant denial. The request cites recent Director precedents to support vacatur.
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
BPI Labs requests Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Eli Lilly’s tirzepatide patent (US 9,474,780). The petitioner argues the denial misapplies § 325(d), ignores material prosecution errors, and violates APA rulemaking requirements. Consistency with a related pending IPR is also urged.
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
The USPTO denied BPI Labs’ request for director review of the decision that had refused to institute IPR 2025-01346 against Eli Lilly’s patent 9,474,780. The original denial of institution remains in effect.
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
Eli Lilly successfully defended its tirzepatide patent after the PTAB denied BPI Labs' request for Director Review of the institution denial, citing strong settled expectations and proper exercise of discretion.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VB Assets’ U.S. Patent 10,755,699, which covers a method for generating natural‑language responses adapted to a user’s manner of speaking. The petition alleges obviousness over three prior‑art references—Kennewick, Cooper, and Matsuda—under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all five claims of Competitive Access Systems’ residential gateway patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on Challener, Kotzin, Ades, and Xin to demonstrate lack of novelty.
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
BPI Labs has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Eli Lilly’s 9,474,780 patent covering GLP‑1/GIP co‑agonist peptides. The petition relies on obviousness over three prior‑art references (Alsina‑Fernandez, DiMarchi, Lau). No secondary considerations are alleged.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Competitive Access Systems' broadband communications device patent, asserting obviousness over Kotzin and Challener references.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01374, allowing the petitioner to proceed to trial. The decision was based on the petitioner meeting the non-discretionary standard of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple and Advanced Coding Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,230,101 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,929,896 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding before a final written decision.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV Company and Nokia Technologies settled the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 8,050,321. They jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple and Advanced Coding Technologies reached a settlement, leading to the termination of an inter‑ partes review of Patent 8,230,101 B2. The Board granted the joint motion to end the proceeding and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz have jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory protection, arguing it contains highly sensitive business information. The request seeks Board order to treat the agreement as business confidential information and limit its disclosure.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑01068 before the Board could institute the review. The PTAB granted the motion, ending the proceeding and treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
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.