US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 87 of 291 · 8,722 total
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent covering shared‑library implementations of OS functionality. The petition relies on prior‑art references (Ely, Levine, Thekkath, Eggert) to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1 and 7 of Pantech’s LTE random‑access patent, alleging lack of written description and anticipation/obviousness by several 3GPP specifications. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and requests institution of the review.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing that the Blaser, Calder and Schmidt-449 references render the claims obvious under §103. The petition also asserts that any discretionary denial would be improper.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑18 of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing obviousness over Elnozahy and Draves and lack of written‑description support. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier container‑virtualization technologies such as Linux VServer, Solaris Zones, and Zap pods.
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v.Klein Tools Inc.
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate Klein Tools' safety‑helmet patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and anticipation by Klein's own 2019 news release, while also challenging the patent’s priority date due to added matter.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
Amazon initiated an IPR against Datonics LLC's patent (US 10984445) concerning profile-based behavioral targeting. The PTAB decided to institute the proceeding, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable as obvious over prior art combinations.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The Board found that all eleven challenged claims of the jump starter apparatus patent were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The decision hinged on finding that Richardson and Zhao teachings, combined with common USB technology, satisfied the claim limitations.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Exhibit containing the final written decision outcomes for IPR2025-00879 involving TSMC and Marlin Semiconductor.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Court decision.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple seek a director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s 2015 semiconductor‑device patent, citing national‑security, settled‑expectations, and material examiner errors. They argue the government shutdown alters the Fintiv calculus, making referral appropriate.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC seeks Director review of a denied institution decision, arguing that the ’747 patent was erroneously issued and threatens U.S. national‑security‑critical chip production. The petition highlights material examiner errors, lack of settled expectations by the patent owner, and the impact of the 2025 government shutdown on the Fintiv analysis.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB upheld its discretionary denial of an IPR petition against Marlin Semiconductor's FinFET patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC investigation. The petitioner's request for Director review was rejected.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Court decision.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR challenging Marlin Semiconductor’s 2015 metal‑oxide semiconductor transistor patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC investigation. TSMC and Apple’s arguments about size and investment were deemed immaterial.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The USPTO denied Director Review requests for four IPR institution decisions, including the challenge to Patent 9,093,473 owned by Marlin Semiconductor. Petitioners Taiwan Semiconductor and Apple’s bid to overturn the institution denial was rejected.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The USPTO denied the Director Review requests filed by TSMC and Apple challenging the denial to institute IPR2025-00848 against Marlin Semiconductor's patent.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple attempted to overturn USPTO denials of institution for Marlin Semiconductor patents, but the Board denied their Director Review requests, leaving the institution decisions intact.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s 2015 semiconductor patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC case. Petitioners TSMC and Apple’s arguments about size and investment were deemed immaterial.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR challenging Marlin Semiconductor's 2015 FinFET patent. The petition emphasizes national‑security stakes, settled expectations, and alleged examiner errors. It also argues the ITC shutdown changes the Fintiv calculus.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The Board notified the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00848 and IPR2025-00879. The Patent Owner may respond within five business days with a brief limited to the raised issues, and no new evidence is allowed.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB denied the petition for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs involving Taiwan Semiconductor and Apple versus Marlin Semiconductor. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes unchanged.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC seeks Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s 2018 semiconductor‑device patent, citing national‑security, public‑interest, and material‑error concerns. The petition argues the shutdown‑induced delay in the ITC makes referral essential.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Court decision.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
An email notifies the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00864 and IPR2025-00865, outlining a 15‑page response limit and a five‑business‑day deadline, with no new evidence allowed.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
An email from the PTAB Director confirms receipt of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00864 and IPR2025-00865, outlining a 15‑page response limit and prohibiting new evidence. The patent owner must file its response within five business days.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR petition against Marlin Semiconductor’s ’880 patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC case. The Petitioners’ arguments about size and investment were deemed immaterial.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to invalidate Marlin Semiconductor’s ’473 MOS transistor patent, asserting that all ten claims are obvious over prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and argues against discretionary denial.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Marlin Semiconductor’s FinFET patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations. The petition stresses the parallel ITC case and TSMC’s strong institution record. No claim construction is raised at this stage.
Amazon Web Services, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Amazon Web Services seeks to invalidate Croga Innovations’ 10,601,780 patent on network isolation, arguing that decades‑old firewall and virtualization techniques render the claims obvious. The petition cites the 2004 Nazario book and the 2010 Ghosh patent as prior art.
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.