US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 79 of 291 · 8,722 total
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 5G semi‑persistent scheduling patent, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Fakoorian‑1, Fakoorian‑2, and Takahashi. The petition presents three §103 grounds and seeks institution of the review.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate Apex Beam's 5G scheduling patent, asserting obviousness over 3GPP standards.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 20‑claim LTE‑MIMO patent, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of all claims.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Apex Beam’s LTE‑MIMO patent, arguing they are obvious over three prior‑art references. The petition requests institution on a §103 ground and argues the Board should not exercise discretion to deny it.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 10,28144, asserting obviousness over Wright and, in combination, Tzannes and Smith. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent (11,108,639) in the PTAB, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claims related to wireless scheduling mechanisms are unpatentable over combinations of Fakoorian-1 and Takahashi. This sets up a major IP battle regarding advanced cellular technology standards.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its IPR against Apex Beam Technologies LLC regarding 5G NR physical layer procedures. The Board found that various 3GPP technical specifications collectively teach the claimed inventions, leading to institution on grounds of obviousness and anticipation.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Apex Beam Technologies, challenging 20 claims of the '110 patent related to multi-antenna transmission. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail on obviousness grounds.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent 10,944,527, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art related to massive MIMO and beamforming.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Mullen Industries' location‑based gaming patent, arguing they are obvious over the Levine prior‑art application.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate three claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑based gaming patent, arguing they are obvious over the earlier Levine application. The petition cites dismissal of the patent in a related district‑court case and argues no discretionary denial factors apply.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Mullen Industries LLC were non-obvious based on prior art (Levine). The Board instituted trial on all challenged claims related to location-based gaming and virtual reality features.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims are obvious over prior art referencing location-based games. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness for multiple claims across two patents.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services terminated an IPR against U.S. Well Services after a Covenant Not to Sue was executed, leading the Board to dismiss the case before any claims were instituted.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute IPR2025-00586 against TJTM Technologies. Director John A. Squires issued an order denying the petition.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google’s request for Director Review of the TJTM patent was met with a forceful response from the patent owner, who cites 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and a delayed Sotera stipulation as reasons to deny the review. The PTAB had already denied institution of the underlying IPR.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against TJTM’s ’853 patent. The company alleges the USPTO retroactively applied new rules, violating due process and the APA. Google seeks vacatur of the denial and referral to the Board.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,459,863 covering electric‑powered multi‑plunger fracturing pump systems. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references, chiefly Fischer, to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of TJTM Technologies’ ’853 patent, which covers a mobile‑device “inactive mode” for reducing driver distraction. The petition relies on obviousness over Cazanas, Frye, and Zhou and argues there is no basis for discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, limiting access to government agencies or parties with good cause.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the Board’s decision not to institute an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 9,619,578, leaving the institution denial in place.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in eight related IPRs against Mobile Data Technologies. The order contains no substantive patentability findings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent 9,619,578. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, examiner error, and violations of due process. It seeks reversal and institution of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent 9,619,578. The petition argues the Board abused discretion by misapplying settled‑expectation doctrine and ignoring examiner error. Samsung seeks reversal and institution of the review.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn the referral and institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent. The company argues the PTAB misapplied Fintiv factors and that the parallel district‑court case makes the IPR redundant. It seeks termination of the proceeding under § 314(a).
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Petitioner Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks denial of Stratasys’s Director Review request, arguing the referral decision was proper and the Fintiv factors favor institution. The Board is urged to reject the request, keeping the 3‑D‑printing patents intact.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology challenges Stratasys’s request for Director Review of an IPR on patent 9,168,698, arguing the referral decision was proper and no new grounds exist. The response stresses correct application of the Fintiv factors and a broad stipulation that avoids duplicate litigation.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR over U.S. Patent 8,222,723 following a settlement of their broader dispute. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate nine inter partes review proceedings before any institution decision. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate a series of inter partes reviews covering multiple patents before any institution decision was made.
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.