US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 69 of 188 · 5,620 total
GetTattle, Inc. v.AfterWords, Inc.
AfterWords, Inc. filed a preliminary response opposing GetTattle’s IPR petition, contending that the cited prior art does not disclose the patented Survey Module and therefore the petition should be denied.
GetTattle, Inc. v.AfterWords, Inc.
GetTattle petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of AfterWords' ‘811 patent covering transaction‑specific surveys. The petition relies on two prior‑art publications, Douglas and Ganesh, asserting they anticipate all claimed elements. Claim constructions are provided to bolster the anticipation argument.
CSPC Megalith Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al. v.Shanghai Miracogen Inc. et al.
CSPC Megalith Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. successfully argued obviousness over Wei, Liu, and Leanna in an IPR proceeding against Shanghai Miracogen Inc. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims, leading to the institution of the case for trial.
GetTattle, Inc. v.AfterWords, Inc.
GetTattle, Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against AfterWords, Inc.'s patent (10430811) based on anticipation grounds (§ 102). The Board found sufficient support in prior art references Douglas and Ganesh for all challenged claims, leading to the institution of the case.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Mobile Data Technologies’ wireless‑communication patent 8,825,801.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ wireless‑communication patent. The petition challenges the Board’s discretionary denial, citing lack of settled expectations and examiner error. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also referenced.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health filed an IPR against Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s patent 10,653,362. The parties settled the dispute before a trial, and the Board terminated the proceeding, keeping the settlement confidential.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health and Worcester Polytechnic Institute have settled their IPR dispute over a respiratory‑rate patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding before institution.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ 8,825,801 patent intact. The Board affirmed that settled expectations and lack of new evidence justified the denial.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR and invalidate all 20 claims of Worcester Polytechnic’s ‘362 patent covering PPG motion‑artifact detection, citing obviousness over Chon ‘947, Mollerus, and Simon. The petitioner also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate under §314(a) and §325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ U.S. Patent 8,825,801, asserting that the claims are obvious over two prior‑art combinations (Randall‑Forsyth and Pelkey‑Eck) and urging the Board to institute the review.
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
Alliance Laundry Systems' IPR petition against PayRange LLC was denied, finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 7 and 11 were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board rejected arguments combining prior art references (Low, Arora, Freeny, Casey) to establish obviousness.
Amazon.com et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved with NL Giken to terminate IPR2025-00407 over U.S. Patent 8,677,391 after reaching a confidential settlement. The motion cites public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and notes the institution decision is still pending.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s petition for inter partes review of Ningde Amperex’s lithium‑battery electrolyte patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any claim.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard’s IPR challenge to Medline Industries’ patent 11,661,220 was terminated after the parties settled before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex Technology’s battery electrolyte patent in IPR2025‑00405. The petitioner argues the Board correctly instituted the IPR and that the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial should be denied. Prior art references disclose the claimed electrolyte components.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Patent Owner seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against its battery‑electrolyte patent. It contends that the Petition forfeited challenges to claims 20‑26 and that ten of the raised grounds are fatally flawed, making institution an inefficient use of resources.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and ASSIA have settled their dispute over a DSL‑related patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority to end the proceeding before any merits are decided and requests confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
Court decision.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum reached a settlement that led to the termination of an IPR challenge to Patent 7,428,669 before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement confidential.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard and Medline have jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit disclosure to federal agencies only.
RingConn, LLC v.Ouraring Inc. et al.
RingConn has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and §112 defects. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §325(d) or §314(a).
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s ’910 battery electrolyte patent, asserting that 21 claims are obvious over a suite of Chinese and foreign prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR under § 103, arguing the claims add no inventive contribution. The Board has yet to decide on institution.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery has filed a corrected IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Ningde Amperex’s 2023 lithium‑ion battery electrolyte patent. The petition relies on multiple foreign and U.S. references that allegedly disclose the same dinitrile, trinitrile and propyl propionate compositions. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2 and 6‑11 of the ’805 patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier autonomous‑vehicle publications. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests the Board to institute the review.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.'s patent (11769910). The Board found sufficient evidence that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various prior art references, including Zeng and Zhou. This ruling advances a critical battery technology dispute into trial.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Director denied institution of IPR for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd., citing the petition's unfocused nature and inefficient use of Office resources.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II over a vehicle guidance patent. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's narrow claim constructions, finding that the Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm jointly filed a request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The filing seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker filed an unopposed motion to dismiss an IPR against Viking Arm before the Board had considered the merits, citing a settlement agreement and CFR provisions to preserve resources.
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.