US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 61 of 188 · 5,620 total
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and PacifiCorp jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025-00425 and requested that the settlement agreement with Birchtech Corp. be kept confidential under statutory provisions.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliates challenge the Director’s discretionary denial of their IPRs on a mercury‑control patent, arguing the petitions are timely and no third‑party interests exist. The Board is asked to deny the Director Review and keep the PTAB as the forum for validity issues.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues no merits decision has been made.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related Board rules to limit public disclosure.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Energy utilities settled their PTAB disputes with BirchTech, prompting the Board to terminate the IPRs for the settling parties and keep the settlement agreements confidential. Remaining petitioners stay in the proceeding.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed a petition to invalidate MES’s ’225 mercury‑removal patent. The petition alleges lack of written‑description support, obviousness over prior art, and anticipation, and urges the PTAB not to deny institution.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MES’s 10,589,225 patent covering mercury‑removal methods in coal‑fired power plants. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and anticipation by the Downs‑Boiler reference, and requests that the Board not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Board instituted the IPR petition against Patent No. 10589225, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The institution decision addressed complex issues regarding real party in interest and written description support for genus claims related to flue gas treatment.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB Director remanded multiple IPRs to the Board, requiring resolution of RPI and privity issues based on a prior ruling limiting parallel challenges.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging claims related to mercury removal from flue gas using activated carbon sorbents. The Board found the Petitioner met a reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard, despite disputes over prior art reduction to practice.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied a patent owner's request for review, remanding the IPR to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses. The proceeding involves PacifiCorp et al. challenging Birchtech Corp.'s patents.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting lack of written description and enablement. The reply argues the claims cover an unmanageable genus of mutants and cites case law to support unpatentability.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health and Worcester Polytechnic Institute have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,713,428. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, which is pending before the Board.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Court decision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent No. 12,054,758 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness.
Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.
Linkplay Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sonos’s ’357 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Richenstein, Chatterton, the MOST‑2.0 spec, and RFC1889. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and requests institution of the review.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Worcester Poly's 9,713,428 patent covering wearable physiological monitoring, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Innovations, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
Axon and Dedrone have filed an IPR petition challenging claim 21 of Airspace Systems’ low‑altitude aircraft identification patent, arguing obviousness over several UAV‑identification references and lack of proper priority. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claim.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned for institution in a PGR proceeding against Halozyme, Inc., challenging the '758 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board adopted a broad claim construction for 'modified PH20 polypeptide,' which significantly broadened the scope of the challenged claims.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Innovations, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Willow Blossom Holdco Limited's breast pump patent (11813381). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing combinations of prior art references like Chang and Fang.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
Axon and Dedrone successfully instituted an IPR against Airspace Systems regarding claim 21 of patent 10713959. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the prior art reference Beard. This decision allows the challenge to proceed to trial, focusing on obviousness in low-altitude aircraft identification systems.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
The USPTO denied USAA's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00812, leaving the institution of the auto‑telematics patent intact.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
USAA defends the institution of an IPR against Auto Telematics, arguing the patent owner waived procedural arguments and that the ’728 vehicle‑data‑logging patent is obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Valneva Austria GMBH v.Takeda Vaccines, Inc.
Valneva Austria and Takeda Vaccines jointly moved to terminate an IPR covering 67 vaccine‑related claims. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition without a merits decision.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
Auto Telematics Ltd. has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its vehicle‑telematics patent, arguing the Board misinterpreted claim language and ignored discretionary denial grounds.
Valneva Austria GMBH v.Takeda Vaccines, Inc.
Valneva has filed an IPR petition challenging all 67 claims of Takeda’s Zika vaccine patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petitioner argues the examiner erred and that no discretionary bars apply, seeking cancellation of the entire patent.
Microsoft Corporation v.TS-Optics Corporation
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging TS‑Optics’ U.S. Patent 7,266,055 covering optical pickup actuators. The petition asserts that all asserted claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references, including Choi, Ogata, Ikeda, Kamata, Santo, Kabasawa, Miura, and Sugiyama. Microsoft seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
USAA successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Auto Telematics Ltd.'s patent covering driver behavior monitoring and accident detection technology. The Board found the claims were reasonably likely to be obvious over combinations of prior art references, moving the case toward trial.
Valneva Austria GMBH v.Takeda Vaccines, Inc.
Valneva Austria GMBH successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Takeda Vaccines regarding a vaccine patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that several claims are unpatentable over combinations of prior art, specifically citing evidence related to fetal protection and antibody transfer.
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.