US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 73 of 291 · 8,722 total
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00720 and related cases, leaving the original denial in place.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed a petition for inter partes review of Pantech’s U.S. Patent 10,764,803 covering enhanced uplink operation in soft handover. The challenger asserts lack of written description and obviousness over several 3GPP standards and Ericsson documents, seeking cancellation of eight claims.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1, 3 and 4 of Pantech’s ’776 patent covering uplink synchronization in multi‑component carrier LTE systems, citing Dinan and several 3GPP documents as prior art.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The PTAB issued an institution decision in the OnePlus vs. Pantech IPR, finding reasonable likelihood that certain claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board's analysis hinged on detailed claim construction and the obviousness arguments presented against various 3GPP specifications and industry standards like Ericsson.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight and MWE have settled their IPR against Champion’s dual‑fuel selector switch patent and request the Board keep the settlement confidential.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted settlement motions, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC while leaving Generac Power Systems as the remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements are to be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s institution decision in IPR2025‑00951, citing claim‑construction issues. The petition was filed by Generac and co‑petitioners against Champion Power’s generator patent.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, citing business‑confidential treatment under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit access to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
Aquestive Therapeutics seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Iono Pharma’s epinephrine prodrug patent. Iono Pharma argues the request fails statutory standards and should be denied.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
Aquestive Therapeutics petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a discretionary denial of institution for an IPR on its epinephrine prodrug patent, arguing factual errors and improper reliance on settled‑expectation criteria.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
The USPTO Director denied a request for review of the earlier decision denying institution of an IPR against Iono Pharma’s patent. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Oracle has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 container‑technology patent, arguing the claims are obvious over existing container systems such as VServer, Solaris Zones, and Zap pods.
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Oracle has filed a petition to invalidate all 18 claims of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, asserting that the Callender reference renders the claims obvious. The petition also argues that any discretionary denial would be unwarranted.
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Oracle has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18 of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing obviousness over Elnozahy and Draves and a lack of written‑description support. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial, noting parallel filings by Google and Microsoft.
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Oracle has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 ’814 patent on the ground of obviousness over Blaser, Calder and Schmidt prior art. The petition argues that each claim element is taught by the prior art and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Oracle has filed a petition to invalidate VirtaMove’s 7,519,814 patent covering containerized application sets, asserting that all 34 claims are obvious over prior‑art virtualization references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Oracle has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent covering shared‑library implementations. The petition relies on prior‑art references that allegedly anticipate every claim element.
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
Aquestive Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Iono Pharma’s ‘437 patent covering sublingual/ buccal epinephrine prodrugs. The challenger relies on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Truelove patents, an academic paper, and the Almoazen paper.
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Oracle has filed an IPR petition challenging eleven claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 container‑technology patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier container systems such as Osman, Tucker, Bandhole and Gélinas.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE petition the PTAB to invalidate Champion’s dual‑fuel generator patent (10,598,101) on grounds of obviousness and anticipation, citing DuroMax, De Vries, Fujisawa, Nakafushi, and Olmr as prior art.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The Director denied institution of IPRs against Champion Power Equipment because Generac Power Systems presented inconsistent arguments regarding the claim terms 'desired pressure' and 'selector switch' in parallel litigation.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac Power Systems successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Champion Power Equipment, Inc., regarding a dual-fuel generator control system. The Board found sufficient showing of obviousness and anticipation across multiple grounds using prior art references like DuroMax and De Vries.
FLSmidth Inc. v.Metso Finland Oy (formerly known as Metso Outotec (Finland) Oy)
FLSmidth has filed an IPR petition challenging all 26 claims of Metso's fluid‑bearing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner erred by not fully evaluating the combination of GB384, DE364 and other patents.
Coretronic Corporation et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 of Maxell’s projector patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art projector documents and manuals.
Hisense USA Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Phenix Longhorn’s LCD gamma‑correction patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Wireless, LLC
OnePlus Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging ten claims of Pantech's U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Zeira and Yi publications. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Wireless, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR for OnePlus Technology against Pantech Wireless, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 10 challenged claims. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references Zeira and Yi taught the necessary elements to overcome obviousness rejections.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung’s IPR against Wilus has been instituted after the Board granted institution on Feb. 9, 2026. The patent owner’s request for Director Review is argued to be moot, relying on pre‑institution filings and Samsung’s compliance with its Fintiv stipulation.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
In IPR2020‑01207, the PTAB held that Samsung’s challenger proved that 11 of the 14 asserted claims of the ’395 patent are anticipated by the prior‑art Grupp ’483 reference, rendering them unpatentable, while three claims remained patent‑eligible.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of IPR 2025‑01003 was rejected. The Deputy Director’s use of the settled‑expectations standard and discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) was upheld, leaving Audio Pod’s patent in force.
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.