US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 72 of 291 · 8,722 total
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care's petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical's embolism‑treatment patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 31 challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
CM HK Limited has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving Samsung’s patents. The Board restricts Samsung’s response to 15 pages, no new evidence, and a five‑day filing window.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has responded to the patent owner’s request for Director Review, asserting that its compliance with a Fintiv stipulation makes the request moot. The Board had already instituted the IPR on the patent, and Samsung seeks denial of the review so the proceeding can continue.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung petitions the Director to vacate the Board’s institution decision for U.S. Patent 10,852,846, arguing the Board failed to construe a key term and improperly relied on expert testimony. The Patent Owner seeks discretionary denial, asserting the Board’s errors undermine claim‑construction consistency.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus requests Director Review to overturn the PTAB's institution of Samsung's IPR, alleging Samsung broke its Sotera‑type promise not to use petition prior art in district‑court litigation. The dispute centers on prior‑art duplication across related patents.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against W&Wsens’s patent was rejected. The Board affirmed discretionary denial, citing Fintiv factors and settled expectations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2025-00995 and IPR2025-00996, leaving the institution denial in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,852,846. The order provides no further substantive analysis of the patent claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s ’910 clot‑removal patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging Solmetex’s 2023 ‘969 Patent covering an intraoral device with mesh. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness of the claims based on earlier dental mouthpiece patents.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of CM HK’s 3D pointing‑device patent, arguing obviousness over Bassompiere and Nasiri references and lack of written description for quaternion‑based features.
Astera Manufacturing Limited et al. v.ElectraLED Inc.
Astera Manufacturing and Chauvet & Sons have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 21‑28 of ElectraLED’s U.S. Pat. No. 7,651,245, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple LED‑lighting prior‑art references.
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Collabo Innovations Inc.
Qualcomm has filed a petition for inter partes review of Collabo Innovations' ’575 microcontroller patent, seeking cancellation of nine claims on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on a series of prior‑art references that allegedly disclose all claim limitations.
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. v.RE Secured Networks, LLC
OmniVision has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RE Secured Networks' 6,838,651 CMOS image sensor patent. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Isogai, Inuiya, Neter, and Fossum.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of W&Wsens Devices’ ’543 patent covering a single‑chip microstructure‑enhanced photodetector. The challenger relies on the Kuboi publication to argue anticipation and obviousness. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of W&Wsens Devices’ ’700 patent, asserting that the invention is anticipated and obvious over the Kuboi publication. The petition relies heavily on detailed comparisons of layer structures, hole etching, and CMOS integration.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Wilus Institute’s U.S. Patent 10,687,281 covering non‑contiguous channel bonding in IEEE 802.11ax. The petition relies on multiple Wi‑Fi standard disclosures to argue lack of novelty and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB institution decision in this IPR found that the petitioner met its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1. The dispute centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding medical devices used for aspirating clot material from blood vessels.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung Electronics successfully navigated a PTAB institution challenge against CM HK LIMITED regarding motion sensing technology. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims based on obviousness (103).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Wilus Institute of Standards, challenging 14 claims related to LTE/5G signal processing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that key claims are unpatentable based on prior art references like Josiam and Kim.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for Samsung's IPR against Wilus, citing the petitioner's failure to justify inconsistent claim construction arguments made in district court and before the Board.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
In an IPR, the PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable under §§102 and 103, finding the petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness arguments persuasive.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care’s petition to review Inari Medical’s 11,744,691 patent covering catheter‑based embolism removal. The Board found the petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of the 31 challenged claims.
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, on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on claims 1‑9.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 patent covering a vacuum aspiration system with hemostasis valve. Petitioner Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, especially claim 1, based on obviousness over Garrison, Schaffer and other references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care seeks an IPR of Inari Medical’s ’333 patent covering aspiration systems for pulmonary embolism and DVT, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the Board to institute review of 36 claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care successfully met the institution burden in its IPR against Inari Medical's '333 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims. The Board found that combining prior art references like Laub and Garrison renders the claimed thromboembolism treatment systems obvious under 103.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus’s request to overturn a patent challenge on LTE/5G technology was denied. Pantech successfully defended the Director’s discretionary denial, emphasizing lack of examiner error and settled industry expectations.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus Technology seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its 4G/5G uplink synchronization patent. The petition argues the “settled expectations” rule was misapplied and that material examiner error and the breadth of related patents merit Board review.
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.