US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 82 of 188 · 5,620 total
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
The USPTO denied Kangxi Communications’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00372, leaving Skyworks Solutions’ patent 9,917,563 unchallenged at the institution stage.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of Valtrus’s ’182 data‑redundancy patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations’ ’139 patent, asserting obviousness over Srinivasan and Taylor. The petitioner argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) or 314(a).
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Kangxi Communications Technologies has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Skyworks' U.S. Patent 8,717,101 covering biasing circuits for RF power amplifiers. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Ishimaru publication and over Ishimaru combined with Harrison’s current‑mirror teaching, and opposes discretionary denial.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. petitions the PTAB to cancel HydraFacial's 11,446,477 skin‑treatment patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America seeks an IPR to invalidate Valtrus’s 6,871,264 patent covering a multi‑processor cache allocation system, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier patents. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 12,053,607 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board has not yet issued a final decision, and the parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB instituted a trial. The Board granted joint motions to terminate and to keep the settlement agreement confidential, ending the proceedings.
Caihong Display Devices Co. Ltd. v.Corning Inc.
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Corning’s 2010 glass‑substrate patent, asserting obviousness over Miwa and Bange and anticipation by Miwa. The petition includes an expert declaration and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of HydraFacial’s ’607 skin‑treatment patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art microdermabrasion references.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑fusion patent owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, alleging the invention was already disclosed in earlier patents by Gordon, McLuen, and Michelson. The petition raises anticipation and obviousness grounds under §§ 102 and 103(a).
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Brain Corp.’s U.S. Patent 10,379,539, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider well‑known navigation and obstacle‑avoidance techniques. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging Perceptive Automata’s AI‑driven image‑analysis patent (U.S. 11,753,046). The petition asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues that many claim elements are non‑patentable printed matter.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of claims 1‑14 of PayGeo’s U.S. Patent No. 11,087,307. The challenger argues the claims are obvious in view of Lin, Rackley, and Tumminaro prior‑art references. The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of PayGeo’s U.S. Patent 12,014,347, asserting that its ten claims covering multi‑factor authentication are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Grigg, Carter, and Google’s 2‑step verification. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑14 of PayGeo’s ’018 mobile‑payment patent, asserting obviousness over Lin, Rackley and Tumminaro. The petition requests institution of the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of PayGeo’s ’296 mobile‑payment patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Lin, Rackley, and Tumminaro prior‑art references. The petition details how each claim limitation is disclosed in the prior art and requests the Board to institute review.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01575, allowing Tesla to challenge Perceptive Automata's patent 11753046 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Competitive Access Systems’ ’343 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation technologies.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4,7,8‑12, and 17 of U.S. Patent 10,868,908, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references Kotzin and Phatak, alone or combined with Peirce, Held, or Decasper.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Marvell has filed an IPR petition challenging Credo’s U.S. Patent 10,877,233 covering active electrical cables with pre‑equalization, asserting that the invention is obvious over prior‑art references such as Lugthart, Gorecki, Cornelius and Samaan.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01218, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 10877233.
Syngenta Crop Protection AG v.Inflexion Point Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Syngenta’s request for rehearing of its post‑grant review denial on patent 12,102,027. The Board concluded the petitioner failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion in the original decision.
SCIENTIFIC DRILLING INTERNATIONAL, INC. v.Gunnar LLLP
Scientific Drilling International has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of Gunnar LLLP’s ‘780 patent on magnetic ranging while drilling. The petition alleges lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over several prior‑art patents.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging VB Assets’ U.S. Patent 11,080,758, asserting that all 44 claims are obvious over existing voice‑commerce technologies. The petition relies on six §103 grounds, pairing each claim set with prior‑art references such as Aretoulaki, Ramer, Kennewick, Hao and Jong.
SCIENTIFIC DRILLING INTERNATIONAL, INC. v.Gunnar LLLP
The PTAB denied institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR) for patent 12110780. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were unpatentable.
Syngenta Crop Protection AG v.Inflexion Point Technologies, LLC
Syngenta Crop Protection AG's petition to invalidate Inflexion Point Technologies' patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence of anticipation or obviousness across multiple grounds, rejecting all challenges including enablement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,613,060 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung challenges a Director Review request by Wilus over its Wi‑Fi 6 patent. The response argues that discretionary denial factors favor referral and that the cited grounds do not merit review, keeping the IPR instituted.
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.