US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 70 of 188 · 5,620 total
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm AS settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,554,473 B2. The Board dismissed the petition and terminated the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen petitions the PTAB to overturn a Director’s denial of institution for an IPR challenging Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s Opdivo dosing patent, arguing the denial misapplied settled‑expectations criteria and ignored European claim abandonments.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
The PTAB denied Amgen's request for Director Review of the USPTO's decision not to institute two IPRs against Bristol‑Myers Squibb patents, leaving the institution denials intact.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen’s request for Director Review of IPR denial is rebuffed by Bristol‑Myers Squibb, which argues the petitioner offers no credible basis and that European prosecution does not affect settled expectations for the U.S. patent.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
The PTAB notified Amgen and Bristol‑Myers Squibb that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025‑00601 and IPR2025‑00602, setting a five‑day deadline for a limited response and prohibiting new evidence.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Heron Therapeutics, Inc.
Azurity has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑30 of Heron’s U.S. 12,115,254 patent covering injectable aprepitant emulsions. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and asserts lack of written description and enablement due to overly broad claim ranges. Institution is requested and discretionary denial is contested.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen petitions the PTAB to invalidate Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s ’529 patent covering anti‑PD‑1/anti‑CTLA‑4 regimens for MSI‑H colorectal cancer, citing anticipation and obviousness over multiple clinical‑trial disclosures. The petition argues no secondary considerations or discretionary grounds support the patent’s validity.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of TankLogix's IPR against SitePro, Inc. regarding claims related to remote control of fluid-handling devices in oil and gas facilities. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness over prior art references Cardamone and Kahn.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix, LLC's IPR petition against SitePro, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB, finding insufficient evidence to support anticipation or obviousness challenges. The Board determined that TankLogix failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the record regarding claims related to fluid handling and industrial control systems.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI and Amazon filed a joint motion stating they have settled the dispute and seek a 45‑day stay of court deadlines.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR against its 7,689,001 patent should be denied, citing a pending settlement and flaws in the petition’s base challenge.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of KAIFI’s ’001 patent covering camera‑based indoor location recognition, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art patents.
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. et al. v.Kolon Industries, Inc.
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. has filed an IPR petition challenging Kolon Industries' 9,617,663 patent on hybrid tire cords, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution, arguing strong statutory and discretionary support.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial on all seven challenged claims of SoundClear Technologies' patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon would prevail on its obviousness arguments over various combinations of prior art references, including Shin and Aoyama.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR petition is unlikely to succeed and that the parties have settled the underlying dispute. The patent owner seeks discretionary denial and plans to request termination of the IPR.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,096,055. Both parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceedings, and the petitioner withdrew its request for Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on Headwater’s patent 11,096,055. Headwater’s response argues the recission of the Vidal Memo was proper, that discretionary denial is statutorily authorized, and that no notice‑and‑comment rulemaking was required.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00481. The company argues that the agency’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo and the new Fintiv discretionary denial framework violate due process, the APA, and statutory limits.
Vertiv Corporation v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
Vertiv has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Valtrus’s 2005 data‑center cooling patent, alleging anticipation by Bash and Patel and obviousness over Bishop, Feeney, and Kochavi. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research's U.S. Patent 11,096,055 covering automated device provisioning and activation. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial. The case is pending before the PTAB.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of KAIFI’s ’518 smart‑home patent, alleging obviousness over the Ermis publication and the combined teachings of Ermis and Nakano. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that the prior art predates the patent’s priority date.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. have reached a settlement in principle regarding patent 8,930,196. The parties filed a joint motion to stay all remaining court deadlines while they finalize their agreement and prepare dismissal filings.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Court decision.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate KAIFI’s U.S. 8,930,196 patent covering a two‑step voice‑activation system. The petition argues that all 20 claims are obvious over Bou‑Ghazale combined with token‑passing, phoneme/anti‑phoneme models, and adaptive filtering. It also contends that discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d) is unwarranted.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Doors and Energex Enterprises entered into a settlement agreement that includes a $300,000 payment and mutual releases of all claims. The underlying civil action was dismissed with prejudice, and the parties agreed to keep the settlement terms confidential.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Inc. submits an authorized response defending the PTAB Acting Director’s denial of institution for ControlTec’s patent. The brief argues the Director acted within statutory discretion and correctly identified a material error involving prior art Carter.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
ControlTec requests the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR on its expired ’847 patent, arguing that the patent’s long life creates strong settled expectations and that the cited Carter reference was already deemed non‑material. The petition seeks discretionary denial under § 314(a).
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
NVIDIA has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR on its GPU‑related patent. The company contends the Board ignored time‑to‑trial statistics and the lack of commercialization, which should favor institution.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Court decision.
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.