US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 97 of 188 · 5,620 total
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
Globus Medical has filed a petition for inter partes review of Spinelogik’s U.S. Patent 8,460,385 covering a spinal fusion device. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art implants (Moskowitz, Hess) and a combination with Steffee’s curved fasteners, and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑5, 7 and 9.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑12 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’416 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Kim, Vayanos) and the applicant‑admitted background. The petition also contests any discretionary denial by the Board.
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
Globus Medical successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Spinelogik's spinal fusion implant patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Blain. This decision advances the dispute into active trial proceedings.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding cellular network resource allocation claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Tesla failed to meet the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Liberty Mutual and Intellectual Ventures reached a settlement that terminated three inter partes review proceedings before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the parties' motions to dismiss and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services entered a confidential settlement with U.S. Well Services, filing a joint request to keep the agreement private and to terminate the IPR covering a modular switchgear patent for electric oilfield equipment.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Liberty Mutual and patent‑holder Intellectual Ventures have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,949,785 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues the proceeding is at an early stage with no merits decision.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
U.S. Well Services seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB Board’s decision to institute an IPR on its hydraulic fracturing patent, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,208,878, resulting in a joint motion to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Liberty Energy’s request for a review of the institution decision on U.S. Patent 11,208,878, leaving the patent’s institution intact.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
The PTAB denied U.S. Well Services’ request to file new Director Review submissions in IPR2025‑00139, leaving the institution of the proceeding intact. The dispute centers on alleged violations of a Sotera stipulation by the petitioners in parallel district‑court litigation.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services filed a detailed response defending the institution of IPR2025‑00139 against U.S. Well Services’ request for a Director’s discretionary denial. The brief leans heavily on Fintiv precedent and argues that the Board’s factual findings are correct and that the patent’s claims remain vulnerable to three prior‑art combinations.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
Luxottica has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of e‑Vision’s Bluetooth‑enabled smart‑eyewear patent, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references including Thiel, Jannard‑740 and Apple’s Siri technology.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Liberty Mutual and Comerica have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 37 claims of Intellectual Ventures' 722 patent on the ground of obviousness over prior‑art event‑notification systems. The petition relies on expert testimony and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Liberty Mutual has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 27 claims of Intellectual Ventures' 844 patent on the basis of obviousness. The petition argues that the examiner never considered key prior art and that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Liberty Mutual and Comerica petition the PTAB to invalidate 63 claims of IV’s ‘Secure Virtual Community Network System’ patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Mehta and RFC‑1383. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of U.S. Patent 11,208,878 covering a modular switchgear system for oilfield fracturing equipment, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for Luxottica against E-Vision's electronic eyewear patent (11487138), finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness grounds using prior art like Thiel and Gruber.
Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Samsung Bioepis sought to invalidate numerous claims of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals' ophthalmic formulations using grounds of obviousness (103). The PTAB denied institution based on a holistic Fintiv analysis, citing significant overlap with ongoing district court and MDL proceedings.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging claims 1-10 of U.S. Well Services' patent '878, focusing on hydraulic fracturing systems and power distribution. The Board found that the petitioner successfully demonstrated a rational basis for combining multiple prior art references to render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin and Cardiacsense settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,980,998, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding without a final decision.
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
Midas Green Technologies seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision instituting an IPR on its immersion‑cooling patent, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and recent case law.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
DeepSig rebuts Digital Global Systems’ attempt to introduce new claim‑construction arguments in a PTAB Director Review request, arguing the Board’s original claim interpretations were correct and that instituting a dependent claim without an unpatentable independent claim is legally untenable.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin and Cardiacsense have jointly moved to terminate their Inter Partes Review over U.S. Patent 7,980,998 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory authority.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
The PTAB denied Dexcowin Global’s inter partes review petition against Aribex’s portable x‑ray device patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any claim. The Board rejected anticipation and obviousness arguments centered on a continuous high‑voltage DC power limitation.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
Digital Global Systems seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its AI‑driven radio‑signal patent. The petitioner argues the Board misread claim language, requiring a modeled signal, and that the Jüschke and Holt references satisfy the statutory standard.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin and CardiacSense have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,980,998 and jointly request the Board keep the settlement agreement confidential, effectively moving to terminate the proceeding.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The USPTO denied Digital Global Systems' request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute its IPR against DeepSig. The denial leaves the original institution denial in place.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
Digital Global Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate DeepSig’s 11,777,540 patent, asserting that its AI‑driven radio‑predistortion claims are obvious over earlier disclosures by Jüschke, Holt, and Dzierwa. The petition outlines three statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103 and urges institution of the review.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin has filed an IPR petition challenging Cardiacsense’s ’998 patent covering swimming‑watch technology. The petition alleges lack of written description for a compass and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
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.