US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 83 of 291 · 8,722 total
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel Corporation and Advanced Micro Devices challenged the patentability of Advanced Cluster Systems' cluster computing patents before the PTAB. The Board issued an institution decision, finding sufficient evidence that the claims are obvious over prior art references like Menon and Trefethen. This moves the dispute toward a full trial on obviousness grounds.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel Corporation et al. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc., challenging 30 claims of patent 11570034 based on obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner could prevail in its challenge to cluster computing technology.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its IPR against Apex Beam Technologies LLC regarding claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11139944. The Board found that the combination of 3GPP standards documents renders the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to institution of trial.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1-20 based on prior art.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the multi-fuel generator patent (10393034). The Board adopted Petitioner's claim construction regarding 'gaseous fuel,' which was critical to establishing obviousness and anticipation grounds.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB Director denied institution of IPRs against Champion Power Equipment because Generac Power Systems presented inconsistent claim construction arguments in related litigation versus before the Board. This decision reinforces precedents requiring petitioners to maintain a single, consistent interpretation of patent claims.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen IPRs after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential. No claim merits were decided.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,912,081 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,374,721 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 11,374,721 patent covering grant‑free uplink transmission, citing Lee, Freda and Ly as obviousness prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of GenghisComm’s ’386 OFDM patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Shattil‑537, Galda, Brüninghaus and Dowling.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 2021 LTE beam‑switching patent. The petition relies on the Chen patent combined with 3GPP standards and the Dahlman textbook to argue obviousness of all twelve claims under §103.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Corning’s 8,640,498 glass‑substrate patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over seven prior‑art references.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Canadian Solar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Trina Solar’s 2019 solar‑cell patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Jin, Feldmann and Chang.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Canadian Solar seeks to invalidate 11 claims of Trina Solar's 9,722,104 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art such as Jin, Feldmann, Chang, Seo, and Watabe. The petition requests institution and notes discretionary denial is inapplicable.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Apex Beam Technologies over a wireless communication patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Lee, Freda, and Ly renders claims 1-20 obvious.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple Inc. against Apex Beam Technologies LLC, finding a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Chen and 3GPP renders at least one claim obvious.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the solar cell technology. The Board concluded that Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over Chang in view of Jin, or other combinations.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 11 challenged claims of the solar cell patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that combining prior art references, particularly Chang and Jin, would motivate an ordinary skilled artisan to make the claimed structure with a reasonable expectation of success.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of VB Assets’ voice‑dialog patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over two pre‑2006 publications. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial is improper.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) while seeking to terminate the IPR.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑00930. The settlement agreement was kept confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 10,979,128. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering Apex Beam’s uplink cancellation signaling patent.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00930 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,472,427. The Board had instituted the review earlier in the year, but the parties seek early termination citing efficiency and public policy.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled 16 inter partes review proceedings, leading the PTAB to terminate the cases.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Apex Beam’s LBT patent. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for settlement.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The PTAB granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen IPRs after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, citing good cause and confidentiality protections.
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.