US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 96 of 188 · 5,620 total
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The PTAB denied Sinclair Pharma’s request for a rehearing of the order that vacated the institution of IPR2025‑00145 concerning HydraFacial’s skin‑care device patent. The Board found no basis to grant rehearing after reviewing the parties’ submissions.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
HydraFacial has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025‑00145, restricting the petitioner to a brief, evidence‑free response.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 10,880,592 after reaching a confidential settlement with NL Giken.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has petitioned the PTAB for inter‑partes review of Vervain’s 8,891,298 patent covering a hybrid NAND flash memory system. The petition asserts that all 11 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of multiple prior‑art references. The Board must decide whether to institute the proceeding.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of Intellectual Ventures II’s ’889 patent covering closed‑loop power control in CDMA/3G networks. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Dateki patent, the Mate publication, and the Chitrapu publication, which disclose the same F‑DPCH mechanisms before the patent’s priority date.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of IV’s ’670 LTE‑MTC patent, arguing they are obvious over Wallen and Berggren. The petition argues that the prior art was not considered during prosecution and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Sinclair Pharma has filed an IPR petition challenging HydraFacial's skin‑treatment patent (US 11,865,287). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and requests cancellation of 41 claims. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla challenged Intellectual Ventures II's wireless communication patents under obviousness (103). The PTAB decided to institute the IPR on all eight claims after finding a reasonable likelihood of success.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla successfully petitioned to challenge Intellectual Ventures II's '670 Patent under Section 103, leading the PTAB to grant institution. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art references Wallen and Berggren regarding LTE/MTC communication systems.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics Corporation's request to institute IPR against Vervain, LLC's patent 8,891,298. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, primarily due to significant overlap with ongoing parallel district court litigation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge a key claim in Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent. The Board granted institution based on obviousness over prior art references like Kim and Nam, advancing the dispute into an active IPR phase.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against HydraFacial LLC regarding skin treatment systems, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references. The Board found that combining existing microdermabrasion and irrigation technologies renders the challenged claims unpatentable.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The PTAB Director vacated the institution decision for IPR2025-00145 and denied the petition. This was because a prior ITC Initial Determination had already found that the patent claims were valid and the owner achieved commercial success.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of institution in IPR2025-00227, finding the review inefficient and unnecessary after prior adjudication and a stipulation not to reassert the claims. Google’s petition for rehearing was rejected.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to rehear the Director's discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00227, arguing the denial exceeds statutory authority and misapplies the "settled expectations" doctrine.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed a petition to invalidate Mullen Industries' 9,635,540 patent covering mobile‑to‑mobile location sharing. The petition relies on a suite of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and asserts no basis for discretionary denial.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
Shopify has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,488,237, alleging anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner overlooked critical teachings and requests the Board to institute review.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of DKR Consulting’s ’995 e‑commerce widget patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 10,846,785, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Dierks and Johnston. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,455,678, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner overlooked key references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of SiOnyx’s ’682 image‑sensor patent, alleging anticipation or obviousness over five prior‑art references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. The denial upheld prior decisions that had not instituted trials on the challenged patents.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
The PTAB denied Shopify Inc.'s request to institute IPR against DKR Consulting LLC's '995 patent. The denial was based on administrative efficiency, as a District Court had already ruled all challenged claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
The PTAB denied Shopify's IPR against DKR Consulting's patent, citing administrative efficiency because a district court had already found all the challenged claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung Electronics' IPR petition against SiOnyx, LLC due to significant overlap with a parallel district court case. The Board found that the proximity of the trial date and overlapping issues outweighed the Petitioner’s strong merits arguments regarding anticipation and obviousness in semiconductor technology.
Mundra Solar PV Ltd. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 11 challenged claims of the solar cell patent were obvious over prior art references. The Board credited the petitioner's evidence, concluding that an ordinary artisan would have combined Chang and Jin to achieve the claimed isolation features with reasonable success.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The PTAB denied Tesla's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2025-00218, leaving the original denial in place.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction of its LTE signaling patent, arguing the Board relied on invented drawings rather than the specification. The petition seeks reversal of the decision and institution of the trial under a proper construction.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla’s request for Director Review of IPR2025-00218 was denied. The Board affirmed its original claim construction, finding the patent’s language requires a one-to-one correspondence between bits and time intervals, and rejected Tesla’s untimely new arguments.
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.