US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 87 of 188 · 5,620 total
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Court decision.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
An email from the PTAB Director informs Welch Allyn that iRhythm’s Director Review requests for multiple IPRs have been received, outlining a five‑business‑day deadline for a concise response and prohibiting new evidence.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB Director has received review requests for IPR2025-00349, -00350, and -00351. The petitioner must respond within five days, limited to five pages, with no new evidence.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ArcelorMittal
POSCO has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of ArcelorMittal’s hot‑stamped coated steel patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition argues that the references were not considered during prosecution and that a skilled artisan would have combined them to achieve the claimed inventions.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed a petition for inter partes review of Welch Allyn’s U.S. Patent 10,159,422 covering a wearable ECG sensor. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references—Matsumura, Jensen, and Ozguz—and asks the PTAB to cancel them.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Pat. 7,181,743. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Welch whitepaper and related publications, and disputes any discretionary denial.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody successfully challenged Hyperice's patent claims in a PTAB proceeding focused on massaging devices. The Board found likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness and statutory deficiencies, particularly regarding the combination of prior art references.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ArcelorMittal
POSCO Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal's patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 25 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness (103) involving various prior art combinations.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group Inc. successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against a patent covering multimedia content delivery systems. The Board found that Petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing across multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, moving the case to the merits phase.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB denied Tesla's IPR against Intellectual Ventures II over patent 7,181,743. The Board found that the prior art did not teach or suggest the specific 'event correlation capabilities' required by the challenged claims.
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC
Twitch Interactive successfully challenged a patent claim in the PTAB, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board adopted Petitioner's narrow construction of 'real time,' favoring transmission upon availability without significant delay over strict human-perception timing.
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC
Twitch Interactive successfully secured institution of its § 103 IPR challenge against Razdog Holdings LLC's patent. The Board adopted the Petitioner's interpretation of 'real time,' allowing the case to proceed to trial on all claims.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB notified parties that Director Review requests for three IPRs have been received. The petitioner has five business days to submit a concise response limited to the raised issues, with no new evidence allowed.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB issued an institution decision for IPR2025-00349 on June 13, 2025. A later director‑review request by the patent owner was filed after the 14‑day deadline and was deemed untimely, so the Board will not consider it.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO denied Webgroup Czech Republic's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs challenging DISH Technologies patents.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB instituted inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent (claims 1‑16) and granted joinder to Webgroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates, aligning the case with the earlier fuboTV/MasterClass IPR.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking federal statutes. The Board had previously authorized the filing, and the parties seek limited disclosure only to government agencies or parties with good cause.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,982,110, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,982,109. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Microsoft’s challenge to all 18 claims of EyesMatch’s ’109 patent and granted Microsoft’s motion to join the earlier IPR2024‑00856, consolidating the proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,982,110 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group and Stingray Music contest a late Director review request concerning a music‑licensing patent, urging the PTAB to deny the request on procedural and substantive grounds. The petitioners highlight the patent’s lack of commercialization and the improper submission of new evidence.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
The PTAB denied X1 Discovery’s request for an extension to file Director Review briefs in three IPRs against Microsoft, finding no good cause and emphasizing the need for timely filing.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all claims of U.S. Patent 10,524,002, arguing they are obvious or anticipated by earlier web‑broadcast technologies. The petition cites Avellan, Ma, Fain, and Wannamaker as prior art and requests that the Board institute the review.
Microsoft Corporation v.ParTec AG
Microsoft seeks to invalidate ParTec’s 11,537,442 patent covering dynamic task allocation in heterogeneous clusters, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lippert, Budenske, and Kambatla. The petition also challenges a potential Fintiv denial.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of X1 Discovery’s U.S. Patent No. 10,552,490 covering search indexing. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Lotus Notes, Raskin, Wu, Entourage, True, and Baeza‑Yates references and urges the Board not to deny institution.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR against U.S. Patent 10,123,074, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Avellan. The decision confirmed that 'content provider' does not require originating the request.
Microsoft Corporation v.ParTec AG
Microsoft Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against ParTec AG's patent, challenging claims related to heterogeneous computing and dynamic task remapping. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art combinations (Lippert, Budenske, Kambatla).
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against X1 Discovery's patent over information retrieval claims. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness based on a combination of prior art references, including Wilcox and Londergan. This decision allows Microsoft to proceed with challenging the validity of key search indexing patents.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that the patent claims were largely obvious over prior art references Leaning and Gamble in the field of Adaptive Bitrate Streaming. Specifically, Claims 2 and 9 were deemed obvious when combining Leaning with Gamble's TCP protocols.
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.