US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 93 of 291 · 8,722 total
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms successfully secured institution at the PTAB regarding its challenge to Mullen Industries' patent covering head-mounted displays and interactive systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, including obviousness (103) based on combinations of prior art.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.'s IPR petition against H2 Intellect LLC's location-based content delivery patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, citing insufficient teaching or suggestion in the prior art.
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC v.Facet Technology Corp.
Mobileye Global successfully convinced the PTAB that several claims of Facet Technology's patent were obvious in light of prior art references Gallagher and Schofield. The Board found Claims 1-4, 8-13 unpatentable based on a combination of these references, while upholding the validity of other claims (5-7, 14-16).
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC v.Facet Technology Corp.
Mobileye Global's challenge to Facet Technology Corp.'s road sign recognition patent failed before the PTAB, upholding claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9335255. The Board found insufficient evidence that combining prior art references would render the claimed method obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,589,225, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the IPR against MidAmerican before any merits decision.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp challenges the Director's discretionary denial of an IPR on MES’s ‘225 patent covering mercury control technologies, arguing the petitions are timely, there are no real parties in interest, and the PTAB is the proper forum.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing MDL efficiency and a misapplied privity analysis under §315(b).
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and the patent owner reached settlements with Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR for those parties. The Board is asked to dismiss the review under 35 U.S.C. §317, citing no merits decision and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and the patent owner jointly move to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements with IPL and WPL confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreements as business confidential information.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. and WEC Energy Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,589,225, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that no merits decision has been rendered.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility affiliates of Berkshire Hathaway Energy settled multiple PTAB IPRs, leading to the termination of the cases for the settling parties while the Board kept the proceedings open for the remaining petitioners.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and PacifiCorp jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025-00425 and requested that the settlement agreement with Birchtech Corp. be kept confidential under statutory provisions.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech seeks PTAB Director Review to block institution of an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing MDL efficiency and a misapplied privity standard.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliates challenge the Director’s discretionary denial of their IPRs on a mercury‑control patent, arguing the petitions are timely and no third‑party interests exist. The Board is asked to deny the Director Review and keep the PTAB as the forum for validity issues.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) while seeking termination of IPR 2025-00425.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,589,225. They jointly moved to terminate the IPR for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light, citing 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to dismiss those parties from the proceeding.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues no merits decision has been made.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related Board rules to limit public disclosure.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and PacifiCorp filed a joint motion to end their IPR against BirchTech Corp., seeking to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and Birchtech Corp have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,589,225 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review involving WEC Energy Group. The motion cites settlement, lack of a merits decision, and public‑policy benefits.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Energy utilities settled their PTAB disputes with BirchTech, prompting the Board to terminate the IPRs for the settling parties and keep the settlement agreements confidential. Remaining petitioners stay in the proceeding.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed a petition to invalidate MES’s ’225 mercury‑removal patent. The petition alleges lack of written‑description support, obviousness over prior art, and anticipation, and urges the PTAB not to deny institution.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MES’s 10,589,225 patent covering mercury‑removal methods in coal‑fired power plants. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and anticipation by the Downs‑Boiler reference, and requests that the Board not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Board instituted the IPR petition against Patent No. 10589225, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The institution decision addressed complex issues regarding real party in interest and written description support for genus claims related to flue gas treatment.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB Director remanded multiple IPRs to the Board, requiring resolution of RPI and privity issues based on a prior ruling limiting parallel challenges.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied a patent owner's request for review, remanding the IPR to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses. This allows Petitioners to proceed with institution.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging claims related to mercury removal from flue gas using activated carbon sorbents. The Board found the Petitioner met a reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard, despite disputes over prior art reduction to practice.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director issued an order supplementing a review decision, limiting the number of parallel IPRs challenging four patents to one per patent.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied a patent owner's request for review, remanding the IPR to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses. The proceeding involves PacifiCorp et al. challenging Birchtech Corp.'s patents.
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.