US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 94 of 188 · 5,620 total
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
Honeywell seeks Director review of the PTAB’s denial of institution of its IPR against DSM’s colored‑suture patent. The petitioner contends the Board erred on patentable weight, combination rewriting, obvious‑to‑try analysis, and reasonable‑expectation‑of‑success standards. The request argues that the prior art makes the claims obvious and unpatentable.
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
Court decision.
NJOY, Inc. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
NJOY challenges JUUL's patent (RE49,114) in a PTAB Petition based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art references 'Cho' and 'Nielsen' disclose the core structural elements of e-cigarette cartridges. This challenge targets numerous claims related to wicking systems and atomization chambers.
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
Honeywell International Inc. challenged the validity of patent 10280532 in a PTAB petition, alleging obviousness based on combinations of prior art references. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated material error by the Examiner and instituted the case for trial.
NJOY, Inc. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
The PTAB denied NJOY's request to challenge JUUL's electronic cigarette patent (RE49114), finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim.
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
Honeywell International Inc.'s IPR challenge against DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood standard for obviousness over various prior art combinations in the field of biomedical devices and polymer fibers.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
Hand Held Products argues that TransCore’s IPR petition is deficient, lacking proper proof that the cited references qualify as prior art, and seeks denial of institution.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
Nike has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that all 21 claims of its ’749 footwear‑knitting patent are unpatentable. The Owner contends the Board erred by disregarding the petitioner’s expert testimony and by incorrectly finding that the Nishida reference anticipates the claims.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products settled their IPR dispute over patents 8,141,784; 8,919,654; and 10,452,968, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before a trial was instituted.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
In IPR2024-00460, the PTAB affirmed that the Nishida reference anticipates lululemon's claims of a footwear knitting method, rejecting Nike's new precision argument. The petitioner's response underscores the Board’s proper reliance on intrinsic disclosure and consistent expert testimony.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑00443 concerning U.S. Patent 8,919,654. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
The USPTO denied Lululemon's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00460 concerning Nike's footwear patent 8,266,749. The order contains no substantive analysis of the patent claims.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
lululemon challenges Nike's patent claims related to knitting textile structures in footwear manufacturing. The petitioner asserts that numerous claims are anticipated by Nishida and rendered obvious by Zuckerman, seeking invalidation of the '749 patent.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,919,654 in a PTAB petition, asserting that the wireless communication technology is anticipated or obvious over prior art references Tolonen, Katz, and Ishizu. The petitioner argues that claimed features like dynamic protocol switching and SDR capabilities are already disclosed in these sources.
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.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
lululemon successfully petitioned to challenge Nike's patent (8266749) before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding anticipation and obviousness grounds, leading to institution of the IPR.
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 21 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board determined that the prior art (Nishida and Zuckerman) anticipated or rendered obvious the claimed textile manufacturing methods, specifically regarding simultaneous knitting and planar configuration.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.General Access Solutions, Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 28 and 29 unpatentable over Vornefeld and Atsuta under 103. The Board concluded that combining the prior art references was an obvious design choice to reduce system complexity in fixed wireless access networks.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx reached a settlement that terminated the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,224,359 before the trial was instituted. The Board ordered the settlement and related license agreement to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,224,359 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 36 claims of SiOnyx’s ’599 image‑sensor patent, asserting that each claim is obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate given the lack of prior petitions and a stayed ITC case.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition to cancel 79 claims of SiOnyx’s 10,224,359 image‑sensor patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Iida and other prior art. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial would be improper.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent 11,101,276 B2. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Micron can prove obviousness over prior art references like Kim and Fang.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
Precision Cancer Technologies has requested a PTAB Director Review of IPR2025-00242. The Patent Owner, Oncoustics, is limited to a brief response within five days, with no new evidence allowed.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
Oncoustics successfully defended the Board’s decision to deny institution of an IPR filed by Precision Cancer Technologies. The patent owner showed the petitioner failed to prove the primary reference disclosed a single static set of raw RF ultrasound data, and the petitioner’s new arguments were untimely.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and other carriers filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against KT Corp.’s wireless patent. They claim the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and retroactively changed guidance, violating due process. The petition seeks reversal of the discretionary denial.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories submits a response urging the PTAB Director to deny Miracor Medical’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00114. The petitioner argues the Board’s findings on particularity, claim construction, word count, and Fintiv factors were proper and that the request would be inefficient.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
The PTAB denied Abbott Laboratories' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including IPR2025-00116 covering Miracor Medical's patent 11,754,077 B1. The institution decisions remain in effect.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories’ petition to institute an IPR against Miracor Medical’s heart‑pump patent is challenged by Miracor, which argues the petition lacks particularity, violates claim‑construction rules, and circumvents word‑count limits, seeking discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Miracor’s LVAD patent (US 11,754,077). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues the petition is not barred. The Board’s decision on institution is pending.
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.