US PTAB Patent Cases
2,587 decisions indexed
Page 9 of 87 · 2,587 total
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Halozyme, Inc.'s patent (12195773) based on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board found it likely that the claims defining a vast genus of modified polypeptides are unpatentable due to insufficient disclosure regarding solubility and activity prediction.
Almendra Pte. Ltd. et al. v.Fienile Agronecócios LTDA
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00055, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review after determining a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.
Straumann USA successfully petitioned for institution in a Post-Grant Review challenging Smart Denture Conversions' dental implant patent (12156781). The Board found likelihood of unpatentability based on indefiniteness and lack of written description/enablement. This sets a precedent regarding the sufficiency of disclosure in complex medical device claims.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00057, allowing the challenger to proceed with trial against patent 12234236.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
The PTAB denied institution for the petitioner's IPR challenge against a wireless device patent related to antenna complexity. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to combine prior art references, specifically because such combinations violated critical spatial diversity requirements of the patented invention.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung Electronics challenged Headwater Research's patent (8406733) in a PTAB petition, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art combinations. The challenger asserts that combining teachings from Houghton and Ogawa, or Houghton-Ogawa with Hwang, renders the claimed device provisioning and secure communication methods predictable.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence Design Systems challenges the 7603636 patent, owned by Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC, on grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The petition argues that automatic generation of verification assertions from graphical specifications was predictable using combinations of prior art in IC design.
Delta Power Equipment Corporation et al. v.P & F Brother Industrial Corporation
Petitioners (Delta Power Equipment, Lowe's, Home Depot) successfully requested institution of their Inter Partes Review against U.S. Patent No. 7,475,622. The challenge asserts that the claimed safety features for table saws are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Gass and AAPA.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Co., Ltd. v.UNM Rainforest Innovations
Panasonic Automotive Systems challenged UNM Rainforest Innovations' patent (8265096) in an IPR, arguing that prior art from IEEE 802.11 standards anticipates or renders the claims obvious. The Board found strong arguments favoring institution based on favorable Fintiv factors.
Alertus Technologies, LLC v.Desktop Alert, Inc.
Alertus Technologies challenges the validity of Patent No. 9172765, arguing that all 13 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner relies heavily on combining prior art references, specifically Dillon and AAPA, with other relevant technical disclosures like Brady and Douglas to demonstrate obviousness in network communication protocols.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to challenge U.S. Patent No. 7,357,310, arguing that claims 1-4 are anticipated (102) or obvious (103). The PTAB institution of review allows the challenger to proceed with its core arguments regarding payment authorization novelty.
TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD. v.ATI Technologies ULC
TCL Industries challenged ATI Technologies' patent 8760454 in an IPR, arguing the unified shader claims are obvious. The petitioner bases its case on combining multiple prior art patents related to graphics processing and load balancing.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to challenge the validity of patent 8783564, asserting that its core claims are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references Horie and Kobayashi. The Board ruled against discretionary denial, moving the case into active litigation status.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
Petitioner Askeladden L.L.C. challenges the validity of patent 7954706, asserting that its features related to mobile payment authorization and cardholder notification are anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The challenge is based on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) across seven claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung filed a Petition challenging claims of the '995 Patent, arguing they are obvious in light of prior art including Phek, Segall, Martins, and He. The petitioner asserts that combining these video coding techniques renders the claimed features predictable to a POSITA.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron Technology filed a Petition challenging 10268608's claims on grounds of obviousness (103). The petition asserts that the claimed memory module features are anticipated by combinations of prior art, including Hiraishi, Butt, Tokuhiro, Ellsberry, and Kim.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,090,025 regarding video coding and error concealment techniques via an IPR Petition. The petitioner asserts that all ten claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references including Mualla, Shirani, and Saito.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Petitioner Askeladden L.L.C. filed an IPR challenging patent 10776863 held by Intercurrency Software LLC, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenge focuses on the combination of electronic trading features and currency conversion methods in financial technology.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. filed a petition challenging the validity of Intercurrency Software LLC's patent (US 10062107) before the PTAB. The petitioner asserts that the claims are unpatentable over prior art based on multiple grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.General Access Solutions, Ltd.
Ericsson Inc. is challenging General Access Solutions, Ltd.'s patent (7230931) in a PTAB petition based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that the claims are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references, including Vornefeld, Atsuta, and Youssefmir, within the context of SDMA/TDD systems.
Apple, Inc. v.THL Holding Company, LLC
Apple challenges THL Holding Company's patent on location and tracking systems via an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are obvious combinations of prior art elements from mobile communication devices and Bluetooth technology. This action is part of ongoing litigation between the parties in District Court.
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
A coalition of major telecom companies (AT&T, Ericsson, Nokia, T-Mobile) filed a Petition challenging Daingean Technologies' patent 10841958. The challenge asserts that the claims are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references Lee and Brismar.
Bowmar Archery LLC v.Futtere, Matthew
Bowmar Archery LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute review of claims in Patent No. 8043177, challenging its validity based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. The petition cites numerous prior art references related to broadhead technology, arguing that the claimed structural elements are already known in the field.
HP Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
HP Inc. et al. challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844 in a petition asserting obviousness over various combinations of prior art references (Lane, Pogue, MIT, Hotelling, Segawa). The petitioner argues that the claimed features are merely predictable combinations of existing technology in portable computing devices.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (8284690) in an IPR, arguing that the claimed wireless ranging and communication methods were anticipated or obvious by existing standards like IEEE-802.16 and DOCSIS-2.0. The challenge utilized multiple grounds of invalidity based on various prior art references including Waxman, Won, and Zuckerman.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast challenges Entropic's '518 patent, arguing that the multi-carrier modulation and bit-loading technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that prior art references (Afshary, Mirfakhraei, Welles) combine to render all four claimed methods unpatentable.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (9210362) in an IPR, asserting that the wideband receiver architecture is anticipated or obvious. The petitioner relies on various prior art references, including Zhang and Mirabbasi, to invalidate claims covering digital signal processing methods.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications filed an IPR challenging the validity of Entropic's wideband receiver system patent (9210362). The petitioner argues that all 20 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references like Petrovic and Eidson.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenges Entropic's wideband receiver patent (9210362) in an IPR, arguing the claimed digital signal processing methods are obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references like Pugel and Crols to invalidate numerous claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (11381866) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over various prior art references. The petitioner argues that Zhang anticipates key features and combinations of Zhang with Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey render other claims obvious. The Board has instituted the proceeding based on these compelling unpatentability challenges.
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.