US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 95 of 188 · 5,620 total
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging Miracor Medical’s U.S. Patent 11,572,879 covering an implantable LVAD. The petition asserts that four prior‑art references render all asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The case is currently pending before the PTAB.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Cellco Partnership and other major carriers petition the PTAB to institute an IPR against Pegasus Wireless Innovation's ’931 patent covering MTC uplink control channel resource allocation, asserting obviousness over standard 3GPP references. The petition argues the Board should not deny institution under §325(d) or §314(a).
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc.'s IPR challenge against Oncoustics Inc. was denied by the PTAB, failing to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The Board found Petitioner failed to sufficiently demonstrate that prior art processed a 'single static set' of raw RF ultrasound data.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Prognosys and 10X Genomics was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (over Cantor/Armani) and anticipation (by Frisen).
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories challenged MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's heart assist pump patent (11754077) on grounds of obviousness over Wampler and Bourque. The PTAB instituted the IPR, affirming plain meanings for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' while finding Petitioner's rationale persuasive regarding combination art.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned to institute IPR against MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's heart assist pump patent (US 11,572,879 B2). The Board adopted broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' leading to institution on all 15 challenged claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Halozyme seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review against its hyaluronidase patent, arguing filing‑date errors, improper claim construction, and Fintiv factors favoring denial.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a petition to invalidate Halozyme’s ’298 patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing the claims lack written description and enablement. The reply attacks Halozyme’s reliance on functional language and disclaimed dependent claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck challenges Halozyme’s request for Director review after the PTAB instituted a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,018,298 covering modified PH20 polypeptides. Merck argues the eligibility and claim‑construction issues are meritless and that the Fintiv factors favor institution.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Miracor Medical’s request for review of the institution decision, arguing the Board already resolved all substantive issues and that new Fintiv arguments are barred.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
The PTAB denied Director Review requests for three IPR institution decisions, including IPR2025-00115 concerning patent 11,674,517 owned by Miracor Medical and challenged by Abbott Laboratories. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Miracor Medical seeks Director Review to deny Abbott’s institution of IPR 2025‑00115, arguing procedural deficiencies, lack of particularity, improper claim constructions, and word‑count violations. The Board had previously instituted the IPR on numerous cardiac‑pump claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck challenges Halozyme’s broad PH20 hyaluronidase patent, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness of the claimed protein variants.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘941 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Dong publication and combinations with Costa and Shirai. The petition seeks institution and argues no discretionary denial is warranted.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Intellectual Ventures’ ’158 patent covering multi‑sensor digital cameras, arguing obviousness over Matsushima, Yu, and Miyazaki and opposing discretionary denial.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 12 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Patent 10,952,153 covering uplink power‑control techniques, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla seeks IPR institution to invalidate claims 11‑22 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’500 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering uplink power control. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Miracor’s LVAD patent (U.S. 11,376,415). The petition argues that the claims are obvious in view of four prior‑art references covering magnetically driven rotary pumps.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging Miracor Medical’s 11,674,517 LVAD patent, asserting that all 19 challenged claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the prior art discloses every claim limitation and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Miracor Medical’s 357 Patent covering a magnetically levitated LVAD. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue that all challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB against Halozyme, Inc.'s '298 patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides. The Board granted institution despite challenges based on Written Description and Enablement, allowing the dispute to proceed to trial.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology initiated an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash memory claims, challenging the patent on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several key claims over prior art (Dong), leading to the institution of the proceeding.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge 19 claims of MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's LVAD patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence for institution, adopting broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling.'
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned to challenge MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's cardiac assist pump patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence of unpatentability over the Bourque/Wampler combination, despite arguments regarding specific claim limitations and prior art scope.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Phison’s post‑grant review petition includes this exhibit of supporting evidence for its challenge to Vervain’s U.S. Patent 8,891,298.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s 11,830,546 patent covering a mixed‑level NAND flash storage system. The Board found Phison’s evidence insufficient to meet the “more likely than not” standard for any of the asserted grounds. No institution was ordered.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
HydraFacial seeks Director Review after the PTAB instituted a copycat IPR despite a parallel ITC case. The patent owner contends the Board failed to apply Fintiv factors, warranting a discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The Board initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR concerning HydraFacial's facial treatment device patent after the ITC found the claims valid and commercially successful. The proceeding is stayed pending the Director's opinion.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The USPTO denied Sinclair Pharma’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00145 concerning HydraFacial’s patent 11,865,287. The institution of the IPR remains in place.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Court decision.
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.