US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 90 of 188 · 5,620 total
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR in the Tessell v. Nutanix case, citing administrative inefficiency because the petitioner includes nearly all inventors of the challenged patent.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care challenges Inari Medical's hemostasis valve patent (11554005) on obviousness grounds. The PTAB instituted the IPR, requiring further review of claims 1-15 based on prior art combinations.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory because the patent owner had successfully filed a statutory disclaimer covering all challenged claims related to 3D memory devices.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc., challenging 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10478954 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board's decision was supported by preliminary claim construction findings that favored the Petitioner’s argument regarding design motivation and prior art combination.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Micron failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits, specifically regarding obviousness over prior art Costa in 3D memory technology.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm Ltd et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC's patent, challenging claims based on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board accepted that a reasonable likelihood of prevailing existed on at least one claim challenge, moving the case into the merits phase.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
The Director granted review and vacated a denial of institution for Arm Ltd against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC, referring the IPR back to the Board after parallel litigation was dismissed.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Intel, Lenovo, and Motorola filed a motion to dismiss their IPR against Collision Communications. The PTAB granted the motion, dismissing the petition and terminating the proceeding.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Lenovo and Motorola filed a motion to dismiss their IPR against Collision Communications, arguing good cause to withdraw before institution, citing prior PTAB precedent and a denied related Samsung IPR.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris contests Inpria’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of an IPR, arguing that Lam Research is not a real party in interest and that Inpria’s claim‑construction arguments are untimely.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris seeks rehearing of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Inpria’s ’903 patent covering semiconductor‑material compounds. The petition argues the Director’s retroactive rescission of guidance and misapplication of Fintiv factors violated statutory and due‑process requirements.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Inpria seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its ’903 patent, arguing Entegris failed the real‑party‑in‑interest test and that the Board’s claim construction conflicts with a Delaware court ruling.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
The USPTO granted Entegris’s rehearing request, vacated the earlier discretionary denial, and sent the IPR on Inpria’s lithography patent back to the Board for institution after a related district‑court case settled.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris and Inpria have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,673,903 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board had previously instituted the proceeding but no merits were decided.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris filed a motion to seal its confidential response to Inpria’s request for director review in IPR2025-00267, citing the need to protect trade‑secret information.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
The PTAB instituted inter partes review of Entegris' challenge to Inpria's 11,673,903 patent covering high‑purity organotin compounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris and Inpria filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, arguing that disclosure would harm their business interests.
X Corp. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
X Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sterling Computers’ 7,716,217 patent covering email relevance scoring, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over prior art such as Dumais, Kircher, Krug, and Marston. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑10 of Inpria’s ’903 patent, asserting that the claimed high‑purity organotin compositions are fully disclosed in earlier literature. The petition challenges the patent on anticipation and obviousness grounds and argues that Inpria’s examiner‑era declarations were misleading.
X Corp. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
X Corp.'s IPR petition against Sterling Computers Corporation's patent (7716217) was instituted, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board found that combining Kircher and Krug would motivate a POSITA to improve relevance scoring in email content ranking.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Intel and others against Collision Communications regarding wireless multiuser detection claims. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, noting that the parallel district court trial date was too close to the Board's statutory deadline.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied Lenovo and Motorola's request to institute IPR against Collision Communications regarding patent 6947505. The denial was based on the Petitioner failing to show a reasonable likelihood of success, mirroring a prior adverse ruling in related proceedings.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Halozyme has filed a Director Review request asking the PTAB to overturn its institution of a post‑grant review of the ’600 hyaluronidase protein patent, arguing procedural errors and an improper claim construction.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC filed a response defending the institution of a post‑grant review of Halozyme’s enzyme patent. The brief rebuts Halozyme’s eligibility, claim‑construction, and Fintiv arguments, emphasizing that the Board’s earlier findings remain sound.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck files a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s protein‑based contraceptive patent, arguing the claims lack written description and enablement. The reply emphasizes that the specification does not support the broad genus of modified PH20 polypeptides claimed.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Merck’s request for a review of the PTAB’s institution decisions in four Halozyme patent cases, leaving the institution findings intact.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
Fullthrottle Technologies contests Rocket Media’s IPR petition targeting claims 1‑36 of its ’219 patent. The owner argues the cited prior art fails to teach essential claim limitations and lacks a motivation to combine, and urges denial under § 314(a) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson and Motorola Mobility have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,184,130 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
Fullthrottle Technologies argues that Rocket Media’s IPR petition for claims 1‑20 of U.S. Patent 11,556,947 fails because the cited prior art lacks key limitations and there is no motivation to combine the references. The response also seeks discretionary denial under § 314(a) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson and Motorola Mobility settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding.
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.