US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 60 of 188 · 5,620 total
Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.
Straumann USA has filed a post‑grant review petition against Smart Denture Conversions’ U.S. Patent 12,156,781 covering dental implant fasteners. The petition alleges indefiniteness, lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over several prior‑art references. Straumann seeks institution of the review and cancellation of all 16 claims.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security has filed a petition to invalidate Wiz’s ’549 patent covering AI‑driven cybersecurity incident response. The challenger alleges obviousness over prior art combining a 2022 cybersecurity system (Peters) with a 2024 LLM‑focused disclosure (Lal). The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security Ltd. has filed a petition for inter partes review of Wiz’s U.S. Patent 11,929,896, asserting that claims 1‑29 are obvious over three prior‑art patents. The petition includes a joint claim construction for “imputed entity” and seeks institution of the IPR under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of Wiz’s U.S. Patent 11,936,693, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Calvo, Nguyen, and Datsenko under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 12 claims of U.S. Patent 8,230,101 on obviousness grounds over Lamkin, Franke, Fiechter, and Ito references.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security has filed a petition for IPR against Wiz’s AI‑cloud security patent, contending that the claims are obvious over existing cloud‑scanning (Shua) and AI‑analysis (Lang) references.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security has filed a petition for inter partes review of Wiz’s U.S. Patent 11,722,554, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art patents by Shivamoggi, Zhong, and Woolward. The petition lists three grounds covering 19 claims and requests the Board to institute the review.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’321 video‑coding patent, asserting that claims 8‑11 are obvious over MPEG‑1, the Kim patent, and Yagasaki. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.
Straumann USA successfully petitioned for institution in a Post-Grant Review challenging Smart Denture Conversions' dental implant patent (12156781). The Board found likelihood of unpatentability based on indefiniteness and lack of written description/enablement. This sets a precedent regarding the sufficiency of disclosure in complex medical device claims.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies LLC's patent (8230101), challenging claims 7-12 based on obviousness over multiple prior art combinations. The Board found that the Petition met the reasonable likelihood standard, particularly regarding how Lamkin discloses key limitations related to content location and tree structure.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against Wiz, Inc.'s cybersecurity patent (12001549) because the petitioner, Orca Security Ltd., maintained inconsistent claim construction positions across different legal forums.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR on all 29 claims of Wiz, Inc.'s patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that a combination of Ross, Agarwal, and Biran teaches every limitation of Claim 1, establishing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security Ltd.'s IPR challenge against Wiz, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Orca failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, specifically regarding the required 'list of abnormal connections' feature.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.
MIM Software and EXINI Diagnostics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,941,817 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.
MIM Software and EXINI Diagnostics settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
H2 Intellect LLC urges the PTAB Director to deny Home Depot’s request for review of the Board’s institution decision, arguing that the Board correctly found the prior art did not disclose key claim limitations and that Home Depot raised new arguments not in its original petition.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot and H2 Intellect settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 9,779,418 B2. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against H2 Intellect’s location‑based advertising patent. The petitioner contends the Board misapplied claim construction and ignored obviousness of key limitations. The request urges reversal of the denial.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
The PTAB denied Home Depot's request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR against H2 Intellect's patent 8,433,296.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot's patent owner H2 Intellect and Samsung settled the related district court case, prompting a joint motion to stay PTAB deadlines. The parties seek a 30‑day stay to finalize the settlement and dismiss the lawsuit.
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC v.Facet Technology Corp.
ZF Active Safety files a petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Facet Technology’s ’328 patent covering roadway reflectivity assessment, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 15 claims of H2 Intellect’s 296 patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art advertising systems (Elliott, Jacob) and a location‑search patent (Musk). The petition includes detailed claim constructions and asserts that discretionary denial is not warranted.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.
MIM Software Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc.'s patent (11941817) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board found reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable based on prior art references like Renisch and Zhao.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms successfully secured institution at the PTAB regarding its challenge to Mullen Industries' patent covering head-mounted displays and interactive systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, including obviousness (103) based on combinations of prior art.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.'s IPR petition against H2 Intellect LLC's location-based content delivery patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, citing insufficient teaching or suggestion in the prior art.
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC v.Facet Technology Corp.
Mobileye Global successfully convinced the PTAB that several claims of Facet Technology's patent were obvious in light of prior art references Gallagher and Schofield. The Board found Claims 1-4, 8-13 unpatentable based on a combination of these references, while upholding the validity of other claims (5-7, 14-16).
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing MDL efficiency and a misapplied privity analysis under §315(b).
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and the patent owner reached settlements with Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR for those parties. The Board is asked to dismiss the review under 35 U.S.C. §317, citing no merits decision and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements with IPL and WPL confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreements as business confidential information.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. and WEC Energy Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,589,225, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that no merits decision has been rendered.
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.