US PTAB Patent Cases
2,587 decisions indexed
Page 75 of 87 · 2,587 total
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
Apple challenges Carbyne Biometrics' patent 11475105 in a PTAB petition, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner asserts that combinations of prior art references like Kesanupalli and Cheng render multiple claims unpatentable.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
Shenzhen Pincan Technology filed an IPR challenging The Ridge Wallet's compact wallet patents, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition targets all 24 claims using extensive prior art combinations involving references like Kane, Beckley, and Minn.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung challenges Headwater Research's '733 Patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art standards (TS-23.140 and Ogawa). The petition asserts that combining existing communication protocols with symmetric encryption was predictable for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Patent 10062107, arguing that its claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 and anticipated under §102. The petitioner asserts that core features like currency conversion in electronic trading systems were already disclosed by prior art references such as Calo, Rude, and Sellberg et al.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. filed an IPR challenging the validity of Intercurrency Software LLC's '930 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed automated trading and currency conversion methods are conventional features of electronic financial systems known prior to 2007.
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.P2i Ltd.
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. successfully petitioned to challenge P2i Ltd.'s patent (11041087) before the PTAB, leading to institution of the IPR. The petitioner alleges that the polymer coating claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Cohen and Legein.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant, Inc. challenges Vigilytics LLC's patent (9665685) in an IPR proceeding over de-identification and tokenization methods for healthcare data. The petitioner asserts that the claimed method is obvious based on combinations of prior art references like Evenhaim, Settimi, Dick, Landi, and Murphy.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant challenges Vigilytics's '012 patent on grounds of obviousness (103) related to de-identification and tokenization in healthcare data. The petitioner argues that combining known concepts from prior art references like Evenhaim, Murphy, Dick, and Landi renders the claims predictable. This is an early petition for review filing focused on fundamental privacy compliance techniques.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc. challenged Serendia, LLC's '774 patent in an IPR petition, asserting that claims are anticipated by Mehta and rendered obvious through combinations involving Na ’848 and Lee. The petition focuses on the unpatentability of medical device claims related to dermatological treatment/microneedling.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc. and Ilooda Co., Ltd. challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,320,536 in a petition asserting anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The challengers argue that the patent's claims are rendered unpatentable by prior art references including Mehta, Na ’848, Lee, and Livneh.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al. v.Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT challenges Pilot Intellectual Property's patent claims in an IPR, arguing the methods for recovering natural gas liquids are obvious. The petitioner relies heavily on combinations of prior art references like Aycaguer and Soldati to demonstrate unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Petitioner Jeisys Medical Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute review of U.S. Patent No. 9,320,536 regarding dermatological treatment devices. The petition asserts compelling grounds for unpatentability under both 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on multiple prior art references.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Petitioner Ilooda Co., Ltd. and Jeisys Medical Inc. challenged the validity of Serendia, LLC's '836 patent in a PTAB petition. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Ganz, Livneh, Hantash, and Lee.
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
Tesla challenges Graphite Charging Company's patent (8,291,243) in an IPR proceeding, arguing the claims are invalid. The petition asserts grounds of obviousness over prior art references Wang, AESO Report, and Cooley.
Tesla, Inc. v.Relink US LLC
Tesla challenges Relink US LLC's '755 Patent in an IPR, alleging that the claims are anticipated by Serban and rendered obvious by combinations of prior art. The petition details multiple grounds under 102 and 103 across all 20 claims, focusing on grid-tied photovoltaic power management systems.
Edwards Lifesciences Corp et al. v.Aortic Innovations LLC
Edwards Lifesciences Corp challenges the validity of Aortic Innovations LLC's patent covering transcatheter heart valve implantation methods, arguing that the claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that specific limitations added during prosecution do not provide sufficient inventive step and rely on established Board findings from previous IPR proceedings.
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore LP challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,141,784 in the PTAB, asserting that the claims are unpatentable over prior art references Tolonen and Katz. The petitioner argues that the core features of the patent—such as EIR terminals connecting chipsets to baseband software—are anticipated or obvious based on these older technologies.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's '826 Patent in an IPR, arguing that prior art renders the core signal monitoring and reporting claims obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of references like Kamieniecki and Konstantinos to demonstrate that the claimed technology is a predictable evolution of existing cable television systems.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,919,654 in a PTAB petition, asserting that the wireless communication technology is anticipated or obvious over prior art references Tolonen, Katz, and Ishizu. The petitioner argues that claimed features like dynamic protocol switching and SDR capabilities are already disclosed in these sources.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenges Entropic's patent (US 10135682) via IPR, arguing that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The challenger relies on numerous grounds combining references like Cooper-Saey and Prodan-Jalali to demonstrate predictability in wireless communications technology.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of patent 10135682, asserting that all 18 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on numerous combinations of prior art references, including Thibeault, Saey, Gross, and Cioffi, to demonstrate the lack of novelty in cable network service group management technology.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast initiated an IPR against Entropic's '759 patent, challenging all 23 claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. §103). The challenger argues that combinations of prior art references—including Gurantz and Grube—render the methods for bit-loading modulation unpatentable.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications filed a Petition challenging the validity of Entropic's '775 Patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over various prior art references. The petition details multiple combinations of references (e.g., Rabenko/Gaspar) to establish non-obviousness across numerous claim sets in the cable modem technology space.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,003,315 on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that the claimed GUI features are merely predictable combinations of prior art from Reavey, Chandhri, and Preppernau.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft et al. filed an IPR challenging LiTL LLC's '315 patent on grounds of obviousness (103). The petition asserts that the claimed features are merely combinations of prior art references, including Reavey and Chandhri. This challenges core aspects of computer interface design in portable devices.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft Corporation filed an IPR challenging LiTL LLC's '8612888 patent on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The petition argues that the claimed digital media management methods are predictable combinations of prior art references, including Reavey and Martinez. This challenges core aspects of the patent's validity in computing devices technology.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft Corporation et al. filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,880,715 on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The challenger argues that all twenty claims are unpatentable by combining various prior art references, including Pröll and Preppernau.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft et al. filed a Petition challenging the validity of LiTL LLC's patent 10564818, asserting that all eight challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition centers on GUI functionality in portable computing modes, arguing combinations of prior art references render the claims unpatentable.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy challenges Exact Sciences' '781 patent on grounds of obviousness (103) related to colorectal cancer diagnostics. The petitioner argues that combining known methods for fecal sample processing, such as DNA methylation and blood protein testing, renders the claims unpatentable over prior art references. This challenge targets multiple diagnostic claim sets across the patent.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
lululemon challenges Nike's patent claims related to knitting textile structures in footwear manufacturing. The petitioner asserts that numerous claims are anticipated by Nishida and rendered obvious by Zuckerman, seeking invalidation of the '749 patent.
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.