US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 68 of 188 · 5,620 total
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Hisense have filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’267 video‑compression patent, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of prior art such as Wada and the Karczewicz applications. The petition seeks cancellation of all 36 claims.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review of Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent No. 10,064,055, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds, each mapping specific claims to prior art such as Lundblade, Jobst, Hardjono and others.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and Champion Power Equipment settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,530,654 and jointly requested that the settlement agreement be kept confidential, while MWE moved to withdraw from the proceeding.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Exhibit 2002 is the settlement agreement in IPR2025-01392 between Top Glory Trading Group, DP Dream Pairs and Cole Haan, ending the challenge to U.S. Patent 10,327,511 covering footwear design.
TikTok Inc. v.ShopSee, Inc.
This exhibit is a memorandum announcing a new PTAB policy that panels will resolve all raised grounds in final written decisions for IPRs and PGRs without oral hearings, aiming for faster, more efficient outcomes.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA and MWE Investments while keeping Generac Powers Systems as a remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements were made confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk and Longitude settled their IPRs over flash‑memory patents before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petitions and terminate the proceedings.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk and Longitude Flash have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,456,365 and jointly moved to dismiss the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties rely on statutory authority to terminate the proceeding pre‑institution.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk and Longitude Flash jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑01281, citing a settlement that they want kept confidential under §317. The Board is asked to seal the settlement and end the proceeding.
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE jointly asked the PTAB to keep their Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the patent file. The request cites statutory provisions for limited access and seeks Board notification of any third‑party requests.
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight and MWE have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Champion Power’s dual‑fuel generator patent (U.S. 10,697,398). The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of 45 claims.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Champion Power Equipment’s ’654 dual‑fuel generator patent, alleging obviousness and lack of structure under §§103, 102, and 112(f). The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk has filed a petition to invalidate 42 claims of Longitude Flash’s 2022 SONOS memory patent, asserting obviousness over Lee ’255, Lee ’961, and Fujiwara. The petition details claim constructions and cites extensive prior art.
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01271 after finding the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Other related proceedings were denied institutional review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks asks the PTAB to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs and PGRs against Samsung, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions in the district court and before the Board violate recent Revvo precedent. The request seeks out‑of‑time Director Review to terminate the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review, leaving the institution of multiple IPRs against Samsung Electronics in place. The Board cited lack of good cause for a deadline extension and the Revvo precedent on inconsistent claim constructions.
North Sails Group, LLC v.Team New Zealand Limited et al.
North Sails has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Team New Zealand’s high‑performance sail patent (US 12,110,089). The petitioner alleges anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, lack of enablement and insufficient written description, citing a range of prior‑art references and prior sales. The PTAB has yet to rule on the petition.
Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Aesthetic Management Partners has petitioned the PTAB for Inter Partes Review of HydraFacial’s 9,550,052 microdermabrasion patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art devices.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Pat. No. 11,974,143, asserting that the claimed multi‑transceiver bandwidth‑allocation architecture is obvious over prior‑art Wi‑Fi aggregation systems (Chincholi, Riggert) and, for a subset of claims, also over Choi’s dynamic frequency selection.
North Sails Group, LLC v.Team New Zealand Limited et al.
The PTAB denied institution of the post-grant review (PGR) for patent 12110089, finding that North Sails Group failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The Board granted institution for the IPR against XiFi Networks' patent 11818591, allowing Samsung to proceed with its challenge. The trial is currently stayed pending review by the Director.
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies withdrew its IPR challenge to Welch Allyn's cardiac monitoring patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Nissan has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Longhorn’s 2009 internal‑combustion‑engine patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over several Japanese utility models and patents.
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate five claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition highlights examiner oversight and argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals and Atossa Therapeutics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,071,391 and jointly moved to terminate the post‑grant review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §327.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals and Atossa Therapeutics filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 327 and to terminate the ongoing post‑grant review of Patent 12,071,391.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
The Director denied Intas Pharmaceuticals' request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00799, leaving Atossa Therapeutics' Patent 11,261,151 in place.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals challenges Atossa Therapeutics’ endoxifen patent in IPR 2025‑00799. The petitioner argues the Board correctly instituted the case and that the Patent Owner’s new arguments are unsupported. The response seeks denial of the Owner’s request for Director Review.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 44 claims of Atossa’s 391 patent covering 90% (Z)-endoxifen compositions, asserting anticipation, obviousness, and lack of written description.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals successfully secured the institution of IPR against Atossa Therapeutics over a drug polymorph patent (11,261,151), challenging claims based on anticipation and obviousness using prior art Liu.
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.