US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 63 of 188 · 5,620 total
Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.
Alpinestars and Dainese have executed a settlement that ends all pending cross‑border patent disputes over airbag technology for motorcyclists. The agreement includes dismissal of lawsuits, withdrawal of oppositions, and a mutual non‑challenge pledge.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.
This exhibit is a certified English translation of the settlement agreement between Dainese and Alpinestars dated Oct. 5, 2020, filed in IPR2025‑00750. It confirms the authenticity of the settlement for the Board’s record.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.
Alpinestars has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Dainese’s U.S. Patent 12,012,065, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank petitions the PTAB to invalidate PACid Technologies' biometric authentication patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition relies on Immega‑Day‑Tomko, Mardikar‑318/Chhabra, and Duffy teachings and argues that institution is warranted under the Fintiv framework.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al.'s IPR challenge against Dainese's inflatable safety device patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, despite arguments regarding obviousness over prior art combinations.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.
The PTAB denied Alpinestars' request for rehearing regarding the institution decision in IPR2025-00750 against Dainese. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of obviousness (103).
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms initiated an IPR against Mullen Industries LLC's patent covering Augmented Reality systems and Head-Mounted Displays. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim based on obviousness over Fager and Martins.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment files a post‑institution response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, arguing that the Kelly reference fails to disclose claim limitations and that Walker is not prior art because the inventors conceived and diligently reduced the invention before Walker’s filing date.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment files a response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited Kelly and Walker references do not anticipate or render obvious any of the 20 challenged claims of its 8,529,336 gaming patent.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
The PTAB granted Dentsply Sirona’s petition to institute an inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s dental densitometry patent (U.S. 6,944,262). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 based on multiple prior‑art references. Institutional discretion factors favored proceeding despite parallel district cases.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a sur‑reply defending claims 7 and 9 of its gaming patent against Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition. The patent owner argues the prior art (Kelly and Walker) does not disclose the required threshold metrics and that the petitioner’s claim constructions are improper.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, contending that the three cited references (Kelly and Walker) do not disclose the threshold‑value features of Claims 7 and 9, and therefore the petition fails to show unpatentability.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a preliminary response opposing Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,529,336. The patent owner contends the cited prior art does not disclose key claim limitations and that one reference is not prior art. The Board denied institution of the petition.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks a Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against patent 8,907,425. The patent owner argues the denial was proper and TSMC’s request is procedurally defective. The review request remains pending.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
PTAB issued a mixed final decision on TSMC’s challenge to patent 8907425, invalidating some claims while upholding others.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks a Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial, arguing that the ’425 patent was issued with material errors and that enforcing it would harm U.S. national‑security and economic interests. The petition emphasizes settled expectations and examiner mistakes.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition on the 11,501,607 gaming patent. The owner contends the cited prior art does not disclose key claim elements and that one reference is not prior art. The Board is asked to reject institution.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment’s sur‑reply rebuts Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, asserting that Walker’s provisional does not confer prior‑art status, that Milestone’s conception and diligence are well‑documented, and that Kelly fails to disclose key claim limitations.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment’s preliminary response argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails to show that the cited references disclose the patented dynamic game‑parameter system or provide a motivation to combine them, leading to a request for denial of institution.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment’s preliminary response argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art does not disclose the required game‑processor features and one reference is not prior art. The Board is urged to deny institution.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioners’ requests for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs concerning patents 8,198,686 and 8,907,425.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment’s sur‑reply argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails on both the Walker prior‑art and Kelly obviousness grounds, citing lack of written‑description support and missing disclosures for key claim limitations.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00697 after settling their dispute and dismissing related district‑court litigation.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Statistical analysis of PTAB IPR decisions from 2020‑2025 shows an increase in rulings that find at least one claim unpatentable, driven by both §102 and §103 grounds.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00697 and related proceedings. The settlement was documented via a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice filed in federal court.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
An email notifies the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for two IPRs involving a semiconductor process patent. The patent owner is limited to a 15‑page response with no new evidence, and the Director will decide on the review.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
Dentsply Sirona has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Osseo Imaging’s 6,381,301 patent covering dental and orthopedic CT densitometry. The challenger asserts the claims are anticipated or obvious over Arai and Pelc references, especially when combined with Cann and Rothman teachings. The petition seeks a finding that claims 1‑8 and 10‑20 are unpatentable.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s U.S. Patent 8,907,425 covering semiconductor devices. The petition asserts that claims 1‑15 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Milestone Entertainment’s ’607 patent covering online gaming systems with mandated and variable parameters. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over prior art such as Kelly683, Walker, Paulsen, and Schneier143 and seeks institution of the review.
SeaSpine Holdings Corporation et al. v.Jackson, Roger
SeaSpine petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑implant patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over long‑standing screw‑thread designs disclosed in Kirschman, Higbee, Johnson, Boschert and a 2005 publication.
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.