US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 91 of 291 · 8,722 total
Wella Operations US LLC v.Olaplex, Inc.
Wella Operations seeks a post‑grant review of Olaplex’s ’225 patent, arguing the claims are too broad, lack enablement, written description, and are indefinite.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of HBCU Messaging’s ’827 patent covering random‑number‑derived message transmission. The petitioner contends the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art messaging references and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
Wella Operations US LLC v.Olaplex, Inc.
The USPTO Office issued a notice detailing multiple institution decisions across various IPR and PGR proceedings.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2026-00109 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
LiftWerx USA Inc. v.Liftra IP ApS et al.
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2026-00102 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent No. 11,176,538 covering limited‑duration payment numbers. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Gomez, Phillips, Casey, and Law, and argues that discretionary denial is not appropriate.
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of CardWare’s ’520 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokens. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT argues that the IPR on Haemonetics’ blood‑apheresis patent should remain instituted, emphasizing that the disputed “controller” term is undisputed and that prior‑art devices disclose it.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Haemonetics Corp. seeks Director review to vacate the institution of an IPR filed by Terumo BCT over its plasma‑apheresis patent. The Owner argues the petitioner’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions and failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) warrant denial. The request cites recent Director precedents to support vacatur.
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
BPI Labs requests Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Eli Lilly’s tirzepatide patent (US 9,474,780). The petitioner argues the denial misapplies § 325(d), ignores material prosecution errors, and violates APA rulemaking requirements. Consistency with a related pending IPR is also urged.
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
The USPTO denied BPI Labs’ request for director review of the decision that had refused to institute IPR 2025-01346 against Eli Lilly’s patent 9,474,780. The original denial of institution remains in effect.
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
Eli Lilly successfully defended its tirzepatide patent after the PTAB denied BPI Labs' request for Director Review of the institution denial, citing strong settled expectations and proper exercise of discretion.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines five grounds based on Lavender and other patents.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VB Assets’ U.S. Patent 10,755,699, which covers a method for generating natural‑language responses adapted to a user’s manner of speaking. The petition alleges obviousness over three prior‑art references—Kennewick, Cooper, and Matsuda—under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all five claims of Competitive Access Systems’ residential gateway patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on Challener, Kotzin, Ades, and Xin to demonstrate lack of novelty.
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
BPI Labs has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Eli Lilly’s 9,474,780 patent covering GLP‑1/GIP co‑agonist peptides. The petition relies on obviousness over three prior‑art references (Alsina‑Fernandez, DiMarchi, Lau). No secondary considerations are alleged.
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Competitive Access Systems' broadband communications device patent, asserting obviousness over Kotzin and Challener references.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01374, allowing the petitioner to proceed to trial. The decision was based on the petitioner meeting the non-discretionary standard of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple and Advanced Coding Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,230,101 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz have jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, citing statutory protections. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the IPR file and limit disclosure to the parties and the Board.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The parties argue that public disclosure would harm their business interests.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz settled their inter partes review dispute and filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding. The PTAB is expected to grant termination as no final written decision has been issued.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,936,693. The parties jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, and the Board is asked to grant the termination.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz settled their inter partes review dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317. The settlement agreement is kept confidential per the Board’s order.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz settled their inter partes review dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding after it had been instituted. The Board granted the joint motion and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 11,929,896. The Board accepted the joint motion and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,929,896 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding before a final written decision.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV Company and Nokia Technologies settled the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 8,050,321. They jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review before it was instituted.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple and Advanced Coding Technologies reached a settlement, leading to the termination of an inter‑ partes review of Patent 8,230,101 B2. The Board granted the joint motion to end the proceeding and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
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.