US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 67 of 188 · 5,620 total
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑00716 after reaching a settlement that also dismissed the related district‑court lawsuit. The Board is asked to grant the termination because the case is at an early stage and unopposed.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation by Schaffer and obviousness over combinations with Hartley, Eller and Garrison. The decision hinges on the Board’s construction that the claimed filament must be flexible, which the prior art does not disclose.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted Imperative Care’s petition to institute inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑9.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care's petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical's embolism‑treatment patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The petition relied on anticipation and obviousness over Garrison and other references, but lacked sufficient particularity.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that Imperative Care proved all nine claims of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 B2 hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable, finding the term “filament” must be flexible and that the prior art renders the claims obvious.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
Innoscience seeks to invalidate all 17 claims of Infineon’s GaN power transistor patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of Nega, Roberts, Otremba and Liu references. The petition also challenges discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d).
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,275,827. They jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPRs challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,839,733. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
Innoscience America petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 17 claims of Infineon's GaN transistor packaging patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and challenging a discretionary denial under §314(a).
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks petitions the PTAB to review U.S. Patent 8,275,827, asserting that key claims are obvious over prior‑art storage systems (Carter, OceanStore, Gibson) and should be invalidated.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks has filed a petition to invalidate claims 24‑25 of ByteWeavr’s 7,949,752 patent, arguing obviousness over two older patents (Chow and White). The petition seeks institution of the IPR, citing prior PTAB rulings and Fintiv factor analysis.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 37‑43 of ByteWeavr’s ’733 patent as obvious over Chow, Lee and White. The petition argues that a skilled artisan would combine these references to achieve the claimed agent‑based network functionality.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB decided to institute trial on all challenged claims of the '921 patent, despite preliminary evidence not supporting anticipation over Schaffer. The Board adopted a broad definition of 'filament' but ultimately found that the claim language required flexibility based on intrinsic and extrinsic teachings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KIWI Intellectual Assets Corporation
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging KIWI’s RE50,307 USB socket patent, asserting that all 93 claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Andre, Lufan, Yuming, Lee, Yen, Zhenyu and USB 3.0. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Citadel Securities LLC v.HFT Solutions, LLC
Citadel Securities petitions the PTAB to invalidate 11 claims of HFT Solutions' FPGA‑PLL synchronization patent, asserting that the invention was already disclosed in Altera’s white paper and related technical manuals, as well as a 2012 academic paper on low‑latency trading.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of institution decisions in four IPRs against Sandpiper CDN’s CDN patents. The denial leaves the original institution rulings intact.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate all twelve claims of Applied Optoelectronics' 10,578,818 optical transceiver patent, citing Wang, Koutrokois, and Tsai as anticipatory and obvious prior art.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Applied Optoelectronics successfully opposed Accelight Technologies’ request for director review, arguing the March 11 memo was inapplicable and that the petition’s grounds were weak. The PTAB upheld the director’s discretionary denial of institution for the IPR.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Microsoft seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision that unusually instituted review of Sandpiper's expired CDN patent. The brief argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations policy and erred in fact finding.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies, a small business, seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Applied Optoelectronics’ optical transceiver patent. The petition emphasizes strong anticipation and obviousness grounds and argues that the patent owner’s conduct and the case’s complexity favor institution.
Terumo BTC, Inc v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing anticipation, obviousness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references covering blood‑fractionation and calculation methods.
Terumo BTC, Inc v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed a corrected PGR petition challenging Haemonetics' plasma‑collection patent (US 12,324,873). The petition alleges anticipation, obviousness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of SoundClear’s ’675 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines seven distinct obviousness grounds and argues against discretionary denial.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution for IPR2026-00095, allowing Microsoft Corporation to challenge Sandpiper CDN's patent 8478903.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple moved to withdraw its IPR against Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 10,064,055 after the related Texas lawsuit was dismissed. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential business information, limiting public access.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Hisense have settled their IPR with Nokia over patent 11,805,267. The parties jointly request that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information and that the proceeding be terminated as to Hisense.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense USA Corporation and Nokia Technologies Oy have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 11,805,267. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and argues that termination will save resources and promote settlement policy.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Hisense settled their disputes with Nokia Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPRs before institution. The Board granted the parties' joint motions and kept the settlement agreements confidential.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01375 after reaching a settlement. The parties seek to keep the settlement confidential and end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
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.