US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 70 of 291 · 8,722 total
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
FreightCar America filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of U.S. Patent 8,132,515, asserting that the hopper‑car features were obvious in view of historic rail‑car literature. The petition relies on multiple early‑20th‑century references and expert testimony to demonstrate lack of novelty.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of VideoLabs' ’304 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Russ and Robert patents.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VideoLabs' ’236 patent covering conditional access and DRM bridging. The petition relies on three prior patents—Russ, Robert, and Eskicioglu—to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate VideoLabs’ U.S. Patent 8,291,236 covering conditional‑access and DRM bridging, citing the Russ patent as prior art for anticipation and obviousness.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VideoLabs' ’236 patent claims covering conditional access and DRM bridging. The petition relies on three prior‑art patents (Russ, Robert, Eskicioglu) to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
Amazon has filed a petition to invalidate DivX’s 10,715,806 video‑transcoding patent, asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art such as Sambe, Vetro, and Gu. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary statutes.
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
FreightCar America filed an IPR petition to invalidate National Steel Car’s 8,132,515 hopper‑car patent. The petitioner asserts that all 44 claims are obvious over a century of prior art, including Hart and historic cyclopedias. The Board has yet to rule on the petition.
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
FreightCar America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of National Steel Car’s hopper‑car patent, asserting that the invention was disclosed in early rail‑car literature and patents dating back to 1919.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Intel, Dell and Dell Technologies have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of General Video's '437 patent covering serial video/audio transmission, arguing obviousness over Kim, Shin and Myers. The petition relies on expert testimony and cites multiple district‑court cases involving the patent.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Intel and Dell have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate General Video’s ’437 patent covering robust subset encoding of video and audio data over a serial link. They argue the claims are obvious over prior patents by Kim, Shin, and Myers.
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
The PTAB instituted review of IPR2025-01047 regarding the hopper car design patent (8132515). The Board found Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 44 challenged claims based on obviousness (§ 103).
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
FreightCar America, Inc. successfully challenged National Steel Car Limited's patent claims in an IPR proceeding. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on independent claim 2 based on obviousness over prior art references. This decision keeps the dispute alive for trial on several key claims.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines petition the PTAB to invalidate Intellectual Ventures' 8027326 patent covering Wi‑Fi channel bonding, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Gardner and Mori.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to institute their IPR against Intellectual Ventures' patent, as the Board found they could not meet the burden of proof regarding claim construction and obviousness. The denial hinged on the Petitioner’s failure to clearly articulate how it would construe key indefinite terms in its petition.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that instituted review of its eight‑year‑old CDN patent (U.S. Pat. 10,057,322). Sandpiper CDN, LLC argues the Board ignored settled‑expectations doctrine and misapplied discretionary‑denial standards.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Kaifi LLC and Amazon reached a settlement in principle, prompting a joint motion to stay all court deadlines while the parties finalize their agreement and prepare dismissal filings.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google responded to Sandpiper CDN’s Director Review request, asserting that the patent owner forfeited its settled‑expectations argument and that the Fintiv factors support referral. The Board had already instituted the IPR, and the Director’s review was denied.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Sandpiper CDN's patent 10,057,322. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of a Director's discretionary denial in IPR2025-00973 involving patent 9,462,411. The Board affirmed its earlier decision not to institute the IPR.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of a discretionary denial and institution denial across several IPRs, including IPR2025-00978 covering patent 12,028,793. The Board affirmed the original decision, leaving the patent dispute unresolved at this stage.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for rehearing of a director’s discretionary denial in IPR2025‑00974 and related cases, leaving Telcom Ventures’ patents untouched.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s petition for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial and institution denial in a series of IPRs against Telcom Ventures. The Board affirmed the earlier decisions, leaving the challenged patents intact.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of the Director's discretionary denial and institution decision in IPR2025-00977 and related cases.
United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
United Microelectronics Corp. has filed a petition to invalidate five claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’779 patent, alleging anticipation by Torii and obviousness over Gilmer and Chen. The petition relies on pre‑AIA §§102 and 103 grounds.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’793 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payments. The petition relies on two prior‑art references, Jain and Dua, to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. No claim constructions or board decisions are present yet.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Telcom Ventures' NFC‑based mobile payment patent (U.S. 9,462,411) on obviousness grounds, relying on the Jain and Dua publications. The petition argues that all claim elements were known in the art before the patent’s filing date.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’199 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payments. The petition asserts obviousness over the Jain and Dua publications and cites lack of commercial success. A stipulation limits further district‑court litigation if the review is instituted.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Intel and Dell seek to invalidate General Video's ’010 HDMI 3D patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over earlier HDMI standards and prior‑art patents (Tu, Suzuki, Yun, Lida). The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel the challenged claims.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC.
Intel and Dell have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate General Video's ’786 HDMI 3D video patent. They argue the claims are obvious over prior art references Tu, Suzuki, and Lida. The petition requests the Board to institute a trial and cancel the challenged claims.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 15 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s ’322 patent covering CDN edge‑server selection. The petition relies on Verma and other prior‑art references under §§102 and 103.
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.