US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 7 of 188 · 5,620 total
Univacco Technology Inc. v.LEONHARD KURZ Stiftung & Co., KG
Univacco Technology Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of the ‘935 decorative‑foil patent, alleging lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and indefiniteness. The petition relies on extensive expert analysis of the patent’s functional language and missing test protocols.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate all twelve claims of SitNet’s U.S. Patent 12,336,052, asserting obviousness over two sets of prior‑art references covering social‑network event handling. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Univacco Technology Inc. v.LEONHARD KURZ Stiftung & Co., KG
The PTAB denied institution for PGR2026-00011, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the required standard of likelihood of prevailing or unpatentability.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Massively Broadband’s ’925 patent covering a wireless‑network clearinghouse and location‑based advertising, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company submits an authorized response urging the PTAB to institute its IPR against AutoConnect’s ’186 patent, emphasizing settled expectations from its long‑term Flextronics partnership and AutoConnect’s maintenance‑fee lapses.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. faces a PTAB Director Review petition after the Board instituted an IPR on AutoConnect’s infotainment patent. The patent owner argues Ford’s settled‑expectations narrative and claim‑construction positions are inconsistent, warranting discretionary denial of institution.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑24 of Intellectual Ventures’ LTE‑related patent, alleging obviousness over multiple pre‑grant references. The petition cites Papasakellariou, Classon, Liu, Muharemovic, and Onggosanusi as prior art.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
CrowdStrike filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Skysong Innovations’ ’721 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering browser security, daemons, and DNS techniques. The petition seeks a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. Patent No. 9,123,186, which covers vehicle‑access control based on user accounts. The petition asserts that all 21 claims are obvious over earlier automotive restriction systems (Gratz, Bosch, Rector, Moinzadeh). The Board is asked to institute the review.
RJ Brands, LLC d/b/a Chefman v.SharkNinja Operating LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01529 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger set of institutional decisions affecting multiple related proceedings.
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied OneSource Solutions' request for Director Review of the denial to institute a PGR against Hippocratic AI's patent 12,142,371. The original institution denial therefore remains in effect.
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
OneSource Solutions requests Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its challenge to Hippocratic AI’s AI‑LLM patent. The petition focuses on structural and indefiniteness deficiencies in Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and 112(b).
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
The PTAB denied OneSource Solutions’ request for director review of its denied PGR petition against Hippocratic AI’s U.S. Patent 12,142,371. The Board found the request failed to meet the statutory standards for reversal.
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
OSSI Corporation filed a motion to correct procedural defects in its petition against Hippocratic AI's patent, seeking Board approval to submit a compliant filing.
Google LLC et al. v.ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of a video‑playlist patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier patents and a programming textbook. The petition cites Hedinsson, Ford, and Kostello as the prior art basis.
Google LLC et al. v.ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 33 claims of ART Research’s ’840 patent, which covers video annotation and indexing. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Datar, Zhou, Gupta, Smith, Friedlander, and Mouilleseaux.
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of Telcom Ventures' NFC‑based mobile payment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial and requests institution of the review.
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of the Post-Grant Review (PGR) in a dispute involving Hippocratic AI's patent 12142371, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the necessary likelihood of prevailing standard.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google withdrew its IPR petition against SoundClear's patent, and the Board terminated the proceeding. No claims were instituted or decided.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑5 of SoundClear’s voice‑content control patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Ocampo and Yi references. The petition requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google LLC filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ ’303 patent. The petitioner alleges procedural errors, APA violations, and improper reliance on discretionary factors. Google seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the trial.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00992 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,352,020.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google’s petition for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ video‑coding patent was met with a detailed response from the patent owner asserting the denial was proper and that the APA challenges lack merit.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to terminate the IPR. The request emphasizes the agreement’s sensitive business terms.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request for director review of the denial of institution in IPR2025-00998 concerning patent 8,090,025. The decision upholds the earlier institution denial against Advanced Coding Technologies.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑10 of U.S. Patent 8,090,025, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art video‑coding references. The petition relies on Mualla, Shirani, Saito, Stockhammer, and Shimizu to demonstrate lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of U.S. Patent 9,986,303, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier scalable video‑coding disclosures (Demircin, Chen, Karczewicz). The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that the prior art was not considered during prosecution.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of Align Technology’s orthodontic treatment‑planning patent (US 10,524,879), alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the round‑tripping collision‑avoidance technique is well‑known.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
ClearCorrect Operating challenged Align Technology's dental treatment planning patent (11,369,456 B2) before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Ground 1, based on obviousness over Chishti-511, Chishti-876, and Sachdeva.
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.