US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 93 of 188 · 5,620 total
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Micron Technology’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving Yangtze Memory Technologies’ patent 10,950,623. The order affirms that the Director will not intervene.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components argues that Conec’s narrow claim constructions for its fiber‑optic adapter patent conflict with its own ITC testimony, urging the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron seeks a PTAB Director Review of Yangtze Memory’s patent (IPR2024-00794). The Director will decide on the request, and Yangtze may file a limited response within five business days.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent covering Linear Vibration Modules. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on multiple combinations of prior art references. This challenge focuses on core haptics and vibration actuator technology.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Petitioner Senko Advanced Components challenges U.S. Conec's patent (11385415) in a Petition, asserting that claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103). The challenge relies on multiple combinations of prior art references related to optical connectors and adapters.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute a parallel Inter Partes Review against Resonant Systems, Inc., finding that the existing IPR proceeding was sufficient despite arguments regarding priority date disputes.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Resonant Systems' patent 9941830, leading to a decision that found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The Board adopted key claim constructions and accepted Petitioner's arguments regarding obviousness over combinations of prior art references.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Resonant Systems, Inc. was instituted by the PTAB after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The Board issued key claim constructions, defining 'driving component' as means-plus-function while confirming 'control component' is structurally defined.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 2 and 3 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The decision hinged on the combination of various prior art references to demonstrate obviousness in vibration module technology.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB found that several claims of the '830 patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness), while others survived. The Board adopted a narrow construction for the 'control component,' requiring an algorithmic structure capable of timing/flipping signals, but not necessarily specific hardware like an H-bridge switch. Claims related to complex vibration modes were found to be taught by prior art.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that Claims 1 and 6 were unpatentable over prior art (Park), while the remaining claims were patentable. The Board clarified claim terms like 'formed in the BSG' to encompass both gate-first and gate-last embodiments, rejecting Petitioner’s obviousness arguments based on hindsight bias.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all five claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed invention was obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Izumi and Cosper.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found that most of the ’015 jump‑starter patent claims are unpatentable, citing anticipation and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references, while claim 11 survived. The decision follows a thorough claim‑construction analysis and a finding that the petitioner met its burden of proof.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination saves resources and promotes settlement policy.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments secured a joint IPR, expanding its challenge to Greenthread’s 10,510,842 patent covering graded dopant semiconductor devices. The Board instituted review of all 18 claims and approved the joinder, citing a reasonable likelihood of success and no prejudice to the existing proceeding.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology and Omachron reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-00690 concerning patent 10,117,550 B1. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments’ request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs challenging Greenthread’s semiconductor patents. The Board found the petitions lacked merit and ordered denial.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied director review requests for three IPRs involving Texas Instruments and Greenthread, leaving the prior final written decisions in place.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments' request for Director Review of the PTAB's final written decisions in three related IPRs involving Greenthread's semiconductor patent. The denial leaves the PTAB's rulings intact.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The USPTO denied ADC Solutions Auto LLC's petitions for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs involving The Noco Company's patents, leaving the original decisions intact.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The NOCO Company's jump‑starter patent, arguing the Board correctly found the claims obvious over standard USB‑charging prior art. NOCO’s request for Director Review is opposed and expected to be denied.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The Noco Company seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that found eight of its USB‑charging jump‑starter claims unpatentable, arguing the Board misapplied obviousness analysis and ignored key evidence.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB granted Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs involving Texas Instruments and Greenthread, vacated those decisions, and remanded the cases for further proceedings, citing abuse of discretion in denying discovery and striking claim‑construction orders.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB Director Review email authorizes ADC Solutions Auto LLC to file a 15‑page response to the Patent Owner’s Director Review request in IPR2024‑00671. No new evidence may be submitted and the response must be filed within five business days.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments Incorporated filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that various combinations of prior art references render the patented technology predictable and non-novel in advanced CMOS fabrication.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC filed an IPR challenging The Noco Company's jump starter patent (11584243) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, such as USB charging and lithium battery protection, are predictable combinations of existing prior art in automotive electronics.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully petitioned to challenge Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s patent claims in a PTAB IPR proceeding, leading the Board to institute the trial on all 28 claims. The institution decision hinged on sufficient evidence of obviousness over prior art references Peter and Neroni.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against The Noco Company's jump starter patent (11584243). The Board found sufficient merit in Petitioner's obviousness challenges, despite Patent Owner invoking prior art estoppel.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found that eight claims of the patent were unpatentable over prior art combinations, specifically regarding jump starting devices with USB charging capabilities. The Board concluded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine existing technologies for convenience and practical benefit.
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.