US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 69 of 291 · 8,722 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01043, leaving the patent owner’s claims intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung submits an authorized response opposing Wilus’s request for director review, arguing the examiner erred materially and that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The IPR remains instituted pending the Board’s decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus requested permission to address recent PTAB director‑review decisions and submit new evidence for five IPRs against Samsung. The Director denied the request, leaving the IPRs proceeding without the proposed extensions or additional evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus asks the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against its Wi‑Fi patents, arguing that the patents are not a diverse range of subject matter. The petition challenges the discretionary denial rationale used by the Board.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics petitions to invalidate ten claims of Wilus Institute’s Wi‑Fi patent, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references covering EDCA parameters, backoff timers, and MU transmission techniques.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of Wilus Institute’s ’035 Wi‑Fi patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references covering EDCA parameters and UL‑MU transmissions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Wilus Institute's patent, challenging claims related to OFDMA scheduling and parameter switching.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus regarding a wireless communication patent, challenging claims 1-10 based on obviousness. The Board found sufficient evidence that Samsung could prevail.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 12,290,418 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 25 claims covering the isolation mouthpiece.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Dr. Brian P. Black submits a declaration supporting Ascentcare’s IPR petition, asserting that the ’969 dental isolation mouthpiece patent is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references. He targets claims 1‑4 and 6‑19, concluding they are unpatentable.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Dr. Brian P. Black, the inventor of a prior dental isolation mouthpiece, filed a declaration supporting Ascentcare’s IPR petition against Solmetex’s 11,589,969 patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to review U.S. Patent 11,589,969, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier dental mouthpiece patents. The petition outlines five statutory grounds under §§102(b) and 103, targeting claims 1‑4 and 6‑19 for cancellation.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against SoundClear’s audio‑processing patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Deputy Director properly applied the settled‑expectations discretion and that no APA or due‑process violations occurred.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon seeks Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule, arguing it exceeds statutory authority and violates the APA. The petition contends the rule is arbitrary, retroactive, and unconstitutional.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs involving SoundClear Technologies' patents. The Board found the petitions did not meet the required standards.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 12,290,418 intraoral device patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR covering 26 claims.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging Solmetex’s 2023 intraoral mesh patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over five prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 18 claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all fifteen claims of SoundClear’s ’374 patent, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering speech detection, quality evaluation, and LED feedback in two‑way radios.
Tesla Inc. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 16 claims of a self‑driving vehicle patent owned by Granite Vehicle Ventures. The petition alleges obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The case is pending institution.
Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc. v.Quanterix Corp.
Fujirebio Diagnostics petitions to invalidate Quanterix’s 2022 patent on tau‑protein blood assays, asserting that the method is obvious over existing single‑molecule array publications and an earlier tau‑diagnostic patent. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel the challenged claims.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Solmetex’s 2023 intraoral mouthpiece patent, arguing obviousness over five prior‑art references.
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
Caption Health has filed an IPR petition challenging UBC’s 2021 ultrasound imaging patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references describing view‑specific neural‑network quality assessment.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,744,686 covering an intraoral mouthpiece. The petition asserts that claims 12‑21 are obvious over several prior‑art patents and that the patent owner broadened claim scope. The case is pending institution.
Tesla Inc. et al. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging Granite Vehicle Ventures’ ’004 patent covering self‑driving vehicle safety features. The petition lists eleven obviousness grounds based on combinations of prior‑art references. The case is pending before the PTAB.
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
Caption Health, Inc.'s IPR challenge against the University of British Columbia's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the combination of prior art references failed to teach or suggest critical elements related to quality assessment in echocardiographic image analysis.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
Amazon and AWS filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR challenge to DivX's video‑transcoding patent (U.S. 10,715,806). The Board was asked to terminate the proceeding, citing good cause and efficiency.
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
National Steel Car seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its freight‑car patent, arguing the petitioner lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that continuing would waste Board resources.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Lattice Semiconductor and Technicolor have settled their dispute, filing a joint notice to vacate the scheduled case management conference and dismiss the case.
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
FreightCar America filed an authorized response opposing National Steel Car's request for Director Review of the IPR institution decision on U.S. Patent 8,132,515. The petitioner contends the request is procedurally improper, relies on new evidence, and is speculative. The Board is urged to deny the request and continue the IPR.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Lattice Semiconductor and Technicolor have settled their dispute, executing a settlement agreement and requesting the court to vacate the upcoming case management conference. The settlement includes payment and a stipulation of dismissal, effectively ending the litigation.
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.