US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 60 of 291 · 8,722 total
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, preventing trials in these cases.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple IPR proceedings, including one involving Apple Inc. and CardWare Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patents.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
The USPTO Board denied institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving Microsoft and Lemko, meaning no trial will proceed.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO denied institution for an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding involving Monahan Products and Baby Jogger regarding patent 9403550.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO Board denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition filed by Monahan Products against Baby Jogger regarding patent 8955869.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of Solmetex’s dental mouthpiece patent, alleging obviousness, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The petition leans on three earlier patents and expert testimony to argue the claims are unpatentable.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
Aerin Medical has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Neurent’s ’262 patent, arguing they are obvious over four prior‑art references covering nasal neuromodulation technology.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Director denied institution for the IPR proceedings involving Aerin Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., halting further trial.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Geotab has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Fractus’s ’149 patent covering smartphone antenna designs, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed a Petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO Director’s denial of institution for patent 7,804,891, alleging statutory and procedural violations.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR on a communication‑quality patent. The patent owner argues the Director’s authority is exclusive and the petition’s APA claims are meritless. The Board is urged to deny the Director Review request.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE settled their IPR against Champion Power's dual‑fuel selector switch patent. They filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Petitioners jointly request that the settlement agreement for the Dual Fuel Selector Switch patent be kept confidential and separate from the PTAB file.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision to deny institution of IPR2025-01161 involving patent 7,804,891. The denial upholds the earlier institution refusal.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging all 36 claims of Nokia’s ’267 patent on the ground of obviousness, relying on two prior‑art video‑coding applications (Karczewicz‑I and II). The petition argues that the combination of these references teaches the same higher‑precision motion‑prediction techniques.
Apple Inc. v.LS Cable & System Ltd. et al.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all claims of LS Cable’s 8,013,568 patent covering contactless battery charging. The petition relies on multiple obviousness grounds using prior‑art references such as Baarman‑878, NCP1800, Horowitz, Veselic and Baarman‑267.
Evenflo Company, Inc. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
Evenflo has filed an IPR petition challenging Baby Jogger’s stroller patent (US 11,577,771). The petition attacks priority and asserts obviousness over five prior‑art references covering claims 1‑15. The case is pending institution by the PTAB.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of U.S. Patent 7,804,891, alleging obviousness over a combination of cellular‑standard prior art. The petition argues the examiner missed critical references and that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Champion Power’s ’667 dual‑fuel generator patent, alleging obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
The PTAB denied institution for the petitioner's IPR challenge against a wireless device patent related to antenna complexity. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to combine prior art references, specifically because such combinations violated critical spatial diversity requirements of the patented invention.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, meaning no trials will proceed in these cases.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO denied institution of IPR petitions filed by ASUSTeK against Nokia, preventing the trial on patentability issues.
Apple Inc. v.LS Cable & System Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Board denied institution of the IPR for Apple Inc. against LS Cable & System Ltd., finding that Apple failed to meet the legal threshold required to proceed with the challenge.
Evenflo Company, Inc. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01140 and related proceedings after determining the petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard. This moves the cases forward to merits review.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap’s IPR petition challenging Nokia’s video‑compression patent was instituted, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 23 claims based on MPEG‑1 and H.263 prior art.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,175,148 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, which the Board granted, also ordering the settlement documents to be treated as confidential.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Nokia’s video‑encoding patent, alleging obviousness over MPEG‑1 and H.263 standards. The petition details how each claim limitation is disclosed in the prior‑art references.
Almendra Pte. Ltd. et al. v.Fienile Agronecócios LTDA
Almendra Pte. Ltd. has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,089,543 B2, asserting indefiniteness, lack of enablement, abstract‑idea ineligibility, and obviousness over Rosen and Richardville. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑7.
Amazon.com, Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 40 claims of VB Assets’ ’385 patent covering voice‑enabled shopping. The petition relies on eight §103 obviousness grounds using prior art such as Li, Chen, Barnes, Kennewick and Lee.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.USTA Technology, LLC
AT&T has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of USTA’s ’720 patent claims, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art MIMO and Wi‑Fi standards. The petition relies on Walton, IEEE 802.11a, Hamabe, and Gubbi references.
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.