US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 99 of 188 · 5,620 total
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed’s request to waive the deadline for a Director Review of its IPR petition was met with a detailed opposition from Cleveland Medical Devices, which argues no good cause exists and cites Board precedent. The patent owner urges denial of the waiver, emphasizing procedural rules and lack of new discretionary factors.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB denied ResMed’s request to waive the deadline for a Director Review in IPR2025-00157, finding the request untimely under the regulations.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Court decision.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and keep it separate from the patent file.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime reached a settlement that resolves all disputes, prompting a joint motion to terminate the IPR on patent 9,887,838. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties seek termination.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed filed a request to waive the 30‑day deadline for a Director Review in its IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices. The Board has set a five‑day window for the patent owner to respond, limiting the reply to five pages and prohibiting new evidence.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson and other U.S. carriers have filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR covering a 5G patent owned by Korea’s KT Corp. They argue the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, ignored a Sotera stipulation, and acted retroactively, violating due‑process. The request seeks reversal of the denial.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, KT and Pegasus entered a settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review as to Ericsson. The Board treated the settlement as confidential and left the proceeding open for the remaining petitioners.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia, KT, and Pegasus have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,638,463 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to Nokia. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Pegasus Wireless Innovation seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR on its ’463 patent, arguing the patent has been dropped from related district‑court litigation and should not consume Board resources.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR covering Pegasus’s 5G‑related patent. Petitioners sought Director Review, but the patent owner’s authorized response argues the denial was a proper exercise of §314(a) discretion and that the petitioners introduced new, unsupported arguments. The Board’s decision is urged to be upheld.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied Ericsson and co‑petitioners' request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00084, leaving the institution of the challenge to Pegasus Wireless Innovation's patent intact.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025‑00084, and the patent owner must respond within five days with a limited brief.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed a petition to invalidate all 19 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, relying on seven new §103 grounds that combine Randall, Wollrab, Obradovich, Sheha, Song, Mura‑Smith and McDonnell references. The petition argues the Board should institute the IPR and cancel the claims, noting no discretionary denial applies.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑10 of WSOU’s ’691 MPLS patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of Vermeer’s 9,321,386 patent covering compact tool carriers. The petition relies on foreign patents KR996 and JP705, plus U.S. patents Bares and Beltrami, to argue obviousness. Kubota also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vermeer’s 9,321,386 patent covering compact tool carriers. The petition relies on Korean KR996, Japanese JP705, and U.S. Bares references to argue obviousness of claims 31‑49, 70‑79, and 86‑87. It also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota seeks to invalidate Vermeer’s compact tool carrier patent by arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution of an IPR covering 31 claims.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vermeer’s U.S. Patent 10,202,266 covering compact tool carriers. The challenger relies on Korean patent KR996 and U.S. patents Bares and Beltrami to argue obviousness under §§102/103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed an IPR petition challenging all 36 claims of Vermeer’s ’750 patent covering compact tool carriers. The challenger relies on Korean patent KR996, and U.S. patents Bares and Beltrami to argue obviousness under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cleveland Medical Devices' ’284 patent covering a networked PAP therapy system, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior PAP and telemedicine technologies.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle seeks IPR on Neapco’s 11,434,958 patent covering a joint‑assembly with an access window. The petition argues the claims are anticipated by the 2016 Jeep Renegade service manual and obvious over that manual combined with Krude ʼ422 and Sugiyama. No secondary considerations are shown, and the petitioner urges the Board to institute the IPR.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson and several industry partners have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 12 claims of U.S. Patent 11,219,000, which covers uplink control channel resource allocation in 5G NR. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art such as Yan, Takeda, Marinier, and a 3GPP submission, and challenges discretionary denial arguments.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Samsung against Mullen Industries. The decision maintains the prior institution decisions across several patents.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Curio Bioscience's IPR challenge against Prognosys and 10X Genomics, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (102), obviousness (103), or written description (112). The Board upheld the validity of the challenged claims in spatial omics/assay systems technology.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
The Director denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review in a Cisco Systems case, vacating the initial decision. The denial was based on procedural efficiency due to the proximity of a parallel district court trial.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB not to issue a discretionary denial of its IPR petition against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent. The Board found that Kubota demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground, allowing the case to proceed to full examination.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's '386 patent, asserting grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The Board found that the petitioner's arguments regarding prior art combinations were persuasive enough to overcome the Patent Owner's request for discretionary denial.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB denied ResMed Corp.'s Inter Partes Review petition against Cleveland Medical Devices' patent, citing prior filings and concerns over 'road-mapping'.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC's patent (No. 10638463) for obviousness over prior art including Takeda, Yan, and 3GPP R1-1711853. The petitioner group, comprising major wireless carriers and tech companies, successfully argued that the claimed method is unpatentable in 5G NR resource allocation.
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.