US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 98 of 188 · 5,620 total
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
Green Revolution Cooling petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑16 of U.S. Patent 10,405,457, arguing obviousness over Best‑2008 combined with Osada and Best‑2012, and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
The Director denied the institution of an IPR for Midas Green Technologies against Green Revolution Cooling, citing Fintiv factors and concerns over parallel proceedings.
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Midas Green Technologies, LLC regarding claims covering appliance immersion cooling systems. The Board found that the petitioner met the burden of proof for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art references Best-2008 and Osada.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin International successfully navigated the initial stages of its IPR challenge against Cardiacsense LTD's '998 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several grounds. The Board found that certain claims were not entitled to an earlier effective filing date due to insufficient written description support for a compass feature in prior applications.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against DeepSig Inc.'s radio communication patent (11,777,540) filed by Digital Global Systems, citing insufficient evidence that the claims were obvious over prior art.
YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) filed an authorized response to Micron’s Director Review request, arguing the PTAB correctly upheld YMTC’s eligibility to pursue IPRs and rejected Micron’s Return Mail arguments. The Board is urged to deny Micron’s request for discretionary denial.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Micron has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against YMTC, arguing the Chinese state‑owned firm is not a “person” under 35 U.S.C. §311 and that the Board should have exercised discretionary denial under §314(a).
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted a Director Review of the institution decision in Micron's IPR against Yangtze Memory, staying the proceedings while the Board reconsidered challenges related to foreign sovereign control and RPI disclosure.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.EXELIXIS, INC.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 of Exelixis’s U.S. Pat. 11,298,349 covering oral cabozantinib (L)-malate formulations. The petition alleges anticipation by the earlier Wilson patent and obviousness over Brown, Kubo and Remington, while arguing that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
Innoscience seeks to invalidate all 17 claims of Infineon’s 8,686,562 patent covering III‑V semiconductor electrical contacts, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over four prior‑art references.
YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging Micron's 3D NAND patent (US 10,872,903). The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over Ahn, Ishikawa, and Fukuzumi prior art and argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary exclusions.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.EXELIXIS, INC.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals failed to convince the PTAB that EXELIXIS's drug formulation patent was unpatentable, resulting in a denial of institution for IPR2025-00210. The Board rejected anticipation arguments based on prior art family relationships and dismissed obviousness claims regarding impurity control.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge by Innoscience America against Infineon Technologies' patent covering semiconductor devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of anticipation for several claims over the prior art reference Usui, while also finding merit in the obviousness arguments.
YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) successfully petitioned to challenge Micron Technology's patent, leading the Board to institute the IPR. The petitioner argued that prior art disclosed or suggested key elements of flash memory technology. This decision allows YMTC to proceed with challenging claims related to semiconductor device structures.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied IPR petitions filed by Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) against Micron. The denial was based not on patentability, but on YMTC's failure to satisfy its statutory duty to identify all Real Parties in Interest.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung Display’s petition to review Pictiva’s ‘547 patent, finding no compelling unpatentability arguments and applying pre‑AIA §102(b) to deem the Igarashi reference prior art.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco’s IPR against WSOU’s ’691 patent was instituted, but the patent owner seeks Director Review, alleging the Panel ignored discretionary‑denial briefing and misapplied the Sotera stipulation analysis. The request aims to have the institution decision vacated.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco’s petition to reinstate an IPR against WSOU’s 8,982,691 patent was opposed by the patent owner, who argued the Director correctly denied institution based on efficiency factors and the limited weight of the Sotera stipulation.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco has filed a petition for rehearing after the Director vacated the institution of its IPR against patent 8,982,691. The company argues the Director overstepped authority by demanding a waiver of district‑court defenses.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco’s request for rehearing of the Director Review decision in IPR2025-00188 was denied, maintaining the denial of institution of the inter partes review against patent 8,982,691.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its PAP device patent. The petitioner contends the Board misapplied General Plastic, contrary to recent Director guidance. The request emphasizes different prior art and the need for efficient review of related patents.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed seeks a PTAB waiver of the 30‑day deadline to request Director Review after the Board denied institution of its IPR, citing a conflicting Director decision and the need for consistency across related petitions.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR, accompanied by a confidential settlement agreement. The PTAB granted the termination and ordered the settlement to be kept confidential.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco Components entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of two inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file in IPR2025‑00090.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,434,958 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under settlement provisions of the patent law.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, Nokia, AT&T, Verizon, Google, and T‑Mobile jointly request that the Board treat their settlement with Pegasus as confidential and terminate the IPR over the ’463 patent, citing that all disputes have been resolved.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, KT, and Pegasus have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,638,463 and seek to terminate the IPR as to Ericsson. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and emphasizes public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, Nokia, Google and other carriers have moved to partially terminate an IPR over Pegasus’s 5G carrier‑aggregation patent after executing binding term sheets with the patent owner and dismissing related district‑court cases.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, KT and Pegasus have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,638,463 and filed a joint motion to partially terminate the IPR against Ericsson. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties argue that settlement warrants termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
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.