US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 85 of 188 · 5,620 total
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Maxell’s ’072 video‑editing patent, asserting that five prior‑art references render the claims obvious. The petition argues against discretionary denial and cites a prior Board decision that found similar claims unpatentable.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to invalidate 31 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing no discretionary denial applies.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and no discretionary denial grounds.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over Sheha and Randall references. The petition cites a prior Board institution in an Apple IPR and argues no discretionary denial applies.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 15‑41 of Mullen Industries’ ’117 patent covering wireless device location sharing, citing multiple prior‑art combinations under §103.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM petitions the PTAB to invalidate Croga’s ’780 patent covering virtual‑machine firewalls, arguing the claims are obvious over Delco, Adams, and Dadhia. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a digital‑camera patent, arguing they are obvious over existing multi‑sensor camera technologies and that no discretionary denial applies.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries regarding patent 11234117. This decision maintains the prior institution decisions across several related cases.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla, Inc. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding its digital imaging patents (7916180). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 16 challenged claims based on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s enzyme patent, arguing the claims lack adequate written description and enablement. The reply emphasizes functional language and the impossibility of testing the claimed 1,059+ PH20 variants.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck defends its PH20 enzyme patent in a PTAB Director Review proceeding, arguing that the claims satisfy §112 written description and enablement and that Halozyme's claim‑construction objections are unfounded. The petitioner also contends that Fintiv factors do not justify discretionary denial.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Halozyme seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review of its ’035 enzyme patent. The petition contends the Board mis‑interpreted claim language and mis‑applied eligibility standards, and argues that Fintiv factors demand denial of institution.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Halozyme has sought a Director Review of the PGR, and Merck has 5 business days to file a brief response without new evidence.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB Director denied Google and other petitioners' request for review of the institution denial in several IPRs, including the case involving Pegasus Wireless Innovation's patent 10,594,460.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other U.S. carriers have filed a petition for Director Review, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00291 concerning patent 10,594,460. They argue the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, retroactively changed policy, and violated due process. The petition seeks to have the denial vacated and the IPR instituted.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera has filed a rehearing request challenging the Board’s denial to institute an IPR on Sun Pharmaceutical’s photodynamic therapy patent, arguing the claims are highly vulnerable and that institution would prevent inconsistent rulings.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The USPTO denied Biofrontera's request for rehearing of the decision that refused to institute its IPR against Sun Pharmaceutical's patent 11,446,512. The Board affirmed the discretionary denial, leaving the patent unchallenged.
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's petition for inter partes review of Truesight's '803 patent covering kiosk‑based media distribution. The Board applied the Fintiv discretionary factors and concluded that denying institution best served efficiency given the parallel district‑court litigation.
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Truesight’s virtual SD‑card patent was denied by the PTAB, which exercised its discretion under § 314(a) after weighing the six Fintiv factors and finding the parallel district‑court litigation outweighed the petition’s merits.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,123,035 covering PH20 hyaluronidase mutants. The petition asserts lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness of the claims. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the trial.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation's 5G frequency‑hopping patent, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny the filing under discretionary statutes.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate eight claims of Sun Pharma’s photodynamic‑therapy device patent, arguing obviousness over Lundahl, Larsen, Hente and Perutz. The petition argues the prior art was not previously considered and that the Board should not deny the petition under §325(d) or Fintiv.
Full-Metal-Power B.V. v.InFocus Downhole Solutions USA LLC
Full-Metal-Power B.V. filed a corrected exhibit set for its IPR challenge to InFocus Downhole Solutions' U.S. Patent 10,676,992, addressing labeling errors.
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑19 of Truesight’s ‘879 patent covering V‑chip‑based parental controls. The petition alleges obviousness over prior art references Sullivan, Leung, and Craner and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted the PGR petition challenging Halozyme's patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides. The Board found that the claims were not sufficiently supported by the specification regarding enablement and obviousness, despite Petitioner's arguments about the genus size.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' petition to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent. The Board concluded Phison failed to show any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under §§ 101, 112, 103. No trial was instituted.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ petition for post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding no sufficient evidence that claims 1‑6 are unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics files a PGR petition to invalidate Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash memory patent, asserting abstractness, lack of written description, indefiniteness and obviousness. The petition leans on an expert declaration and extensive prior‑art citations.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Micron (on behalf of Phison) petitions the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Vervain’s 10,950,300 flash‑memory patent, arguing they are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under § 314(a).
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.