US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 86 of 188 · 5,620 total
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioners' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case covering patent 10,721,118 owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other carriers’ request for director review of the PTAB’s denial of institution in a wireless patent case was rejected for lacking a valid basis and introducing new arguments.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other carriers filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against patent 10,721,118. They contend the Board abused discretion, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed policy, seeking a review of the denial.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Vervain’s ‘369 NAND‑flash patent, alleging abstractness, lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and a consortium of carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate U.S. Patent 10,721,118, which covers dual‑connectivity methods for user equipment. The petition relies on the Futaki publication and 3GPP standards to argue anticipation and obviousness of all 15 claims.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,938,201 and jointly moved to terminate the pending post‑grant review. The Board is expected to grant the termination under statutory authority.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,938,201, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the post‑grant review.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,938,201 and jointly request the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of five IPR petitions on the basis of a new “settled expectations” rule. The petitioner contends the rule is retroactive, violates precedent, and would harm patent quality. The request seeks vacatur of the denial and institution of the IPRs.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied iRhythm’s petition to institute an IPR against Welch Allyn’s cardiac‑monitor patent. Welch Allyn’s counsel filed an authorized response asserting the Director’s holistic assessment was proper and that the petitioner offered no new evidence. The request for review is therefore expected to be denied.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and its partners seek Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against KT Corp.’s 942 patent. They argue the denial violated due process and misapplied Fintiv factors, urging the Board to institute the review.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The Board acknowledged receipt of Director Review requests for several IPRs, including IPR2025‑00378, and instructed the patent owner to file a limited response within five business days. No new evidence may be submitted.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in multiple IPRs, including the Verizon Wireless challenge to Pegasus Wireless’s patent. The Board affirmed its original decision not to institute the IPRs.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and other carriers have filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on the ’272 patent owned by Korea’s KT Corp. They argue the denial violated due‑process and that institutional review is needed for efficiency and fairness.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of Johns Hopkins' ’201 patent covering low‑molecular‑weight FAP‑α imaging agents, arguing obviousness, lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and indefiniteness.
Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging ParkerVision’s 9,118,528 patent covering down‑conversion receiver technology, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed an IPR petition challenging 26 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable heart‑monitor patent, asserting obviousness over Jensen, Kroll and other prior art. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v.AbTis Co., Ltd.
Ajinomoto has filed an IPR petition challenging AbTis’s U.S. Patent 11,896,675 covering site‑specific antibody‑drug conjugates. The petitioner alleges lack of written description, improper priority, and that all 13 claims are anticipated or obvious over several pre‑grant publications and conference disclosures. The petition seeks cancellation of every claim.
Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 14 of ParkerVision’s ‘177 patent, asserting obviousness over Tayloe, a TI multiplexer datasheet, Razavi, and Uzunoglu references. The petition argues that the prior art predates the patent’s critical date and that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and co‑petitioners seek to invalidate a 5G resource‑allocation patent owned by Pegasus Wireless, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art standards and publications. The petition requests the PTAB to institute the IPR and cancel all 20 challenged claims.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE challenged The Johns Hopkins University's claims regarding FAP-α targeting moieties based on obviousness and patentability issues (103/112). The Board instituted the PGR, finding that the claims face significant challenges related to enablement and indefiniteness.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v.AbTis Co., Ltd.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against AbTis Co., Ltd.'s patent (11896675) covering Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs). The Board found sufficient evidence for institution on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness regarding claim 11.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
Samsung successfully challenged all 16 claims of Molecular Rebar Design’s ’282 patent covering carbon‑nanotube binders for batteries. The Board found the claims obvious over prior art and adopted a construction that “discrete” does not require non‑attachment.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied iRhythm’s petitions for review of the USPTO’s discretionary denial to institute several IPRs against Welch Allyn, leaving the original institution denials in place.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm’s request to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for its cardiac monitor patent was met with a detailed response from Welch Allyn, asserting the Director’s holistic discretionary denial was proper under §314(a). The Board’s denial stands pending any further review.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla’s petition to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 7,181,743 was denied after the Board found no abuse of discretion. The Board held that the prior‑art reference Welch does not disclose the claimed event‑correlation capabilities.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB Acting Director's discretionary denial of its IPR petitions against Welch Allyn’s wearable cardiac‑monitor patents. The petitioner argues the new "settled expectations" rule was applied retroactively, violates precedent, and harms patent quality.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Samsung's challenge to claims 1‑8 of U.S. Patent 8,808,909 and granted Samsung’s motion to join the earlier IPR filed by LG Energy Solution, consolidating the disputes.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks a Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Stratasys’s 8,747,097 patent. The petitioner argues the denial violates statutory requirements and recent guidance on Sotera stipulations. The request highlights examiner error and lack of settled expectations by the patent owner.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys, the owner of U.S. Pat. 8,747,097 covering 3‑D printing technology, has responded to a challenger’s request for Director Review, arguing the request is untimely and lacks a statutory basis. The patent owner urges the Director to deny the review.
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.