US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 65 of 188 · 5,620 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has asked the PTAB Director to review six IPRs involving Audio Pod’s patent 9,319,720. The patent owner must reply within five business days, limited to the issues raised and without new evidence.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review involving WEC. The motion cites statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement, seeking Board approval to end the proceeding.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal rules. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations to limit public access to the agreement.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy and BirchTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,933,370. The parties jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing settlement and lack of a merits decision. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the IPR.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility consortiums including PacifiCorp settled IPRs covering several power‑grid patents, resulting in the termination of the proceeding for two petitioners while the Board kept the case open for the remaining parties. The settlement agreement was designated business‑confidential.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
An email from the PTAB Director notifies PacifiCorp and MES, Inc. that Director Review requests have been filed for two IPRs. The petitioner has five business days to submit a limited response, and no new evidence may be introduced.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 29 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’720 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary denial under §§314(a) and 325(d) is inappropriate.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,933,370, which covers mercury removal from coal‑fired power plant flue gas. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues the patent lacks written‑description support for its priority date. The Board’s decision on institution is pending.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and its affiliates have filed a petition to institute an IPR against MES’s 10,933,370 patent covering mercury‑removal methods, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the claimed additive‑to‑sorbent ratio lacks patentable weight.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 13‑15, 17‑18 of Dialect’s 9,263,039 patent, asserting they are obvious over prior art from Maes and Ross. The petition argues the examiner never evaluated this combination and that discretionary factors favor institution.
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
Google LLC initiated an IPR against Withrow Networks Inc., challenging nine claims related to Adaptive Bitrate Video Transmission. The Board instituted the proceeding, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over Carmel and Mattavelli.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition challenging a mercury removal patent (10933370) because the petitioner had filed a second, ranked petition on the same claims. The Board followed the Director's instruction to select only one petition.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR petition against Birchtech Corp.'s '370 patent, finding that PacifiCorp et al. met the standard for reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all asserted grounds. The Board also addressed and rejected arguments from Patent Owner regarding written description and enablement issues concerning bromide compounds.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director granted review of institution decisions in IPRs involving PacifiCorp and Birchtech, vacating the initial rulings. The Board was remanded to determine which single petition should be instituted for each patent due to concerns over procedural efficiency.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted IPR on PacifiCorp's claims against Birchtech Corp. regarding flue gas desulfurization technology, overcoming a time-bar defense raised by the Patent Owner. The Board found Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard for institution across multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Amazon's request for review of the PTAB's institution decisions in multiple IPRs against Audio Pod IP, including the 9,954,922 patent. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon sought Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent. The patent owner argues the denial was proper under settled‑expectations and discretionary authority. The response urges the Director to reject Amazon’s review request.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the IPR file and restrict third‑party access.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,908,508, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review that had been instituted earlier in the year.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” bar on IPRs. They argue the standard exceeds statutory authority, conflicts with precedent, and violates the APA and due‑process rights.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00758 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,908,508.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested PTAB Director Review for six IPRs, including the dispute over Audio Pod IP's patent 10,805,111. The patent owner may respond within five business days, but cannot submit new evidence. The Director will determine whether to grant the review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Audio Pod IP’s 10,805,111 patent covering digital talking‑book playback, arguing that all 16 claims are obvious over prior art such as Prabhakaran and DTB.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft seeks to invalidate Dialect’s 9,495,957 patent covering natural‑language processing in mobile devices, arguing that claims 7 and 8 are obvious over prior art such as Maes, Coffman, Kennewick and Weissman, and urging the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully challenged The Phelan Group's driver authentication patent (9908508) at the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, including anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Murphy and Petrik. This decision significantly strengthens Mercedes-Benz's position in related district court litigation against Phelan Group.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent was met with a detailed response asserting the denial was proper and that no APA or due‑process violations occurred.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested Director Review of six IPRs targeting its audio‑pod patent. The PTAB will decide whether a limited review is permitted, with the patent owner allowed a brief response but no new evidence.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The USPTO denied Tessell's request for Director Review of the institution denial in its IPR against Nutanix's patent. The Board affirmed the earlier decision, leaving the institution denial in place.
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.