US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 89 of 188 · 5,620 total
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has petitioned an IPR against Stratasys' 3‑D‑printing patent covering purge‑tower printing, asserting obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging VideoLabs' U.S. Patent 8,291,236 covering conditional‑access and DRM bridging. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art patents and seeks institution of the review.
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Google, Samsung and others have filed an IPR petition challenging Truesight’s ’300 patent covering on‑screen video chapter navigation. The petition asserts that prior‑art references Nishikawa, Angiolillo, Vahtola and Ackley render all 20 claims obvious. The Board is asked to institute review and cancel the claims.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR petition challenging Patent No. 9,421,713 B2 based on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in additive manufacturing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by prior art (Boyer).
LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO successfully convinced the PTAB that MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.'s claims related to VOD user interfaces were obvious over prior art references. The Board found that combining existing concepts from sources like TechnoBuffalo and Kim provided sufficient motivation for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent (U.S. 10,805,687) on obviousness grounds, citing a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition argues no prior petition exists and includes a Fintiv stipulation to limit further challenges.
Lam Research Corp. v.Inpria Corporation
Lam Research has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Inpria's EUV lithography patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness issues. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,865,291 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. All challenged claims (1‑8, 12‑19) are now subject to trial.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on all nine challenged claims.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Nutanix filed a request for director review, urging the PTAB to deny Tessell’s IPR on grounds of unfair dealing, settled expectations, and prior art already examined. The petition argues that the inventors are attempting to profit twice from the same invention.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Petitioner Tessell, Inc. filed an authorized response opposing Nutanix, Inc.’s request to reverse the PTAB’s institution of IPR2025-00298. The brief argues no unfair dealing, cites settled expectations for early‑filed patents, and asserts that discretionary denial under §325(d) is improper.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. seeks rehearing of the Director’s decision to deny institution of its IPR against Nutanix, arguing the Director misapplied assignor estoppel contrary to 35 U.S.C. §311(a) and Federal Circuit precedent. The petition asks the Board to reverse the denial and reinstate the institution order.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Nutanix successfully defended the Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Tessell, arguing that the Director’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) is unbounded and that no right to institution exists. The Board denied Tessell’s request for rehearing.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable. Petitioner Imperative Care proved anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller and Garrison, with the Board emphasizing that the claimed filament must be flexible.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success. All challenged claims (1‑7, 9‑10, 15‑18, 20‑24) are now under review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care’s petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 11,744,691, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board concluded the cited prior art did not disclose the required negative‑pressure pump configuration.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools entered into a settlement that resolves their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,241,776. Both parties jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, citing Board policy favoring settlement and the lack of a merits decision.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 11,034,007 and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00261, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c).
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. submitted an email to the PTAB Director requesting a rehearing after the Director Review denied institution of its IPR against Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The PTAB denied Tessell, Inc.'s petition for rehearing of the Director Review order that had vacated the institution of an IPR against Nutanix, Inc.'s patent 11,860,818. The decision leaves the prior order in place and no claims were examined.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The PTAB notified the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-00298. The petitioner is limited to a five‑page response filed within five business days, and no new evidence may be introduced.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial of institution was rejected. The Board found Arm lacked a concrete interest and the prior art cited was cumulative, supporting the denial.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,984,228 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to MediaTek, leaving the proceeding active only for Arm Ltd.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm Ltd filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial that blocked an IPR on its multicore processor patent (U.S. 8,984,228). The petition cites the settlement of related litigation and prior Board findings that identical claims were invalid over the Sinharoy reference.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The Board is asked to restrict access to the agreement to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm Ltd petitions the PTAB Director to vacate a discretionary denial and institute an IPR on its multicore processor patent after the related Texas lawsuit was settled and dismissed.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings America and Kyocera Senco settled their IPR dispute over four patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑36 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent 11,860,818, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art database UI disclosures. The petition argues that the examiner never considered the cited references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Lam Research Corp. v.Inpria Corporation
Lam Research has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Inpria’s ’048 patent covering EUV photoresist deposition. The petition relies on obviousness and anticipation grounds over Meyers, Weidman, Berney, and Molloy, and raises a new‑matter issue. The Board must decide whether to institute the trial.
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.