US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 71 of 291 · 8,722 total
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Telcom Ventures’ ’756 patent covering smartphone‑based mobile payments. The challenger relies on the Jain and Dua prior‑art references to argue obviousness of all 18 claims.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’432 patent covering smartphone‑based financial transactions. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over earlier NFC and biometric systems disclosed in Jain and Dua. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Sandpiper CDN, LLC were likely unpatentable under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board granted trial, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.
Eli Lilly successfully defended its tirzepatide patent against Empower Clinic Services’ request for Director Review. The PTAB affirmed the discretionary denial of institution, citing Lilly’s strong settled expectations and lack of material examination error.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.
Empower Pharmacy filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s discretionary denial of institution for Lilly’s tirzepatide patent (US 9,474,780). The petition argues that Lilly’s reliance on settled‑expectations and Orange Book listings is misplaced and that the examiner’s error was manifest. The request seeks to have the trial instituted to correct the alleged error and curb high drug prices.
Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC
ATLeisure, LLC seeks a discretionary denial of the IPR against its adjustable‑umbrella patent, arguing settled expectations, duplicate litigation, and prior art already considered by the USPTO.
Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC
ATLeisure, LLC seeks a discretionary denial of the IPR petition against its adjustable‑umbrella patent, arguing settled expectations, duplicate litigation issues, and a weak priority theory. The petition challenges claims 1‑7 on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.
The PTAB denied Empower Clinic Services' request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of IPR2025‑01024, which challenges Eli Lilly's patent 9,474,780. The institution remains denied, ending the challenge.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for rehearing of its discretionary denial in IPR2025‑00975 and related cases. The Board affirmed the original decision not to institute the challenges.
Caihong Display Devices, Co., Ltd v.Corning Incorporated
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Corning's 9,512,025 patent covering a glass‑ribbon heating cartridge for LCD displays, alleging obviousness over three prior‑art references.
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.
Empower Clinic Services filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 16 claims of Eli Lilly’s peptide patent (US 9,474,780) on the ground of obviousness over three pre‑2015 WO publications. The petition argues that a skilled artisan would have combined these teachings to arrive at the claimed GIP/GLP‑1 dual‑agonist peptides.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
Klein Tools petitions PTAB to invalidate Milwaukee’s 11,952,167 toolbox patent, asserting that its 16 claims are obvious over decades‑old container designs. The petition lists eight grounds of obviousness, each combining Burchia, Metabowerke and other prior art references.
Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC
Treasure Garden petitions the PTAB to invalidate all seven claims of ATLeisure’s 8,104,492 umbrella patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art umbrellas and proposing claim constructions.
Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC
Treasure Garden has filed an IPR petition challenging all seven claims of ATLeisure’s 8,104,492 umbrella patent, alleging anticipation by Wang ’109/’439 and obviousness over Glatz ’980 and related references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ 9,832,708 patent covering dual‑air‑interface smartphones and NFC‑based payments, asserting obviousness over Jain and Dua references.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition on the basis of a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, violates the APA, and is arbitrary and capricious. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the IPR.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB Director received a request from Amazon and co‑petitioner for Director Review of IPR2025‑01041 concerning patent 10,735,488. The Patent Owner, Audio Pod IP, LLC, may file a 15‑page response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence permitted.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review, upholding the Deputy Director’s discretionary denial of institution for Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent. The Board found Amazon’s APA and due‑process arguments unpersuasive.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the PTAB's decision not to institute an IPR against Audio Pod IP's patent 10,735,488.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’488 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art CDN technologies. The petition lists multiple grounds under §103 and requests the Board to institute the trial.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Corning's 8,642,491 glass‑substrate patent. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue that all 24 claims are either anticipated or obvious. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. The review will cover claims 1‑9 and is based on anticipation and obviousness grounds over Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care secured institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent covering claims 1‑9. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and related references.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 2025 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references covering dental isolation mouthpieces.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung responded to the Patent Owner’s request for Director Review, arguing that the Board correctly found no inconsistency in claim positions, that construction was unnecessary, and that expert testimony was explanatory. The Director’s denial of discretionary review under § 325(d) is upheld.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR against W&Wsens’s memory patent is challenged by the patent owner, who argues the Board correctly applied discretionary denial factors. The response contends Samsung failed to meet the statutory standard for review and that its arguments are insufficient.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung and affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a USPTO decision that denied institution of an IPR on their 10,446,700 patent. They contend the Board misapplied the Fintiv factors, created an improper time‑bar, and ignored material examination errors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for a six‑year‑old patent owned by W&Wsens Devices. The petition argues the DI misapplied the Fintiv factors and created an unlawful time‑based bar.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025‑00995, leaving the original denial of institution in place.
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.