Artificial intelligence — US PTAB Patent Cases
37 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 2 · 37 total
Wealth, Inc. v.--
Wealth, Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Vanilla Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,353,917, alleging ineligibility, obviousness, indefiniteness, and an improper dependent claim. The petition relies on prior‑art references Racanelli, Bateman, Dintenfass, McMillen and Kwak.
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑16 of U.S. Patent 8,438,120, which covers hyper‑parameter optimization for machine‑learning classifiers. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness, and asks the PTAB to institute the trial.
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
OneSource Solutions requests Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its challenge to Hippocratic AI’s AI‑LLM patent. The petition focuses on structural and indefiniteness deficiencies in Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and 112(b).
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 12 and 13 of Dialect’s 7,640,160 patent, arguing they are obvious over Maes, Coffman, and Ross references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of Perceptive Automata’s autonomous‑driving patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art machine‑learning patents and that many claim elements are non‑patentable printed matter.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1,4,6‑9 of U.S. Patent 7,398,209, alleging obviousness over multiple speech‑recognition and natural‑language prior arts. The petition lists five grounds invoking 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition for inter partes review of Dialect’s ’825 patent covering speech‑recognition methods, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition for inter partes review of Dialect’s U.S. Patent 8,015,006, targeting claims 5 and 6. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art speech‑recognition references. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms seeks Director Review of a denied IPR on patent 9,263,039. The patent owner, Dialect, argues for discretionary denial, citing the patent’s expiration, settled expectations, and the copycat nature of the petition. The Board has not yet ruled on the request.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms filed a Request for Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against Dialect’s 9,263,039 speech‑recognition patent. The petition argues that a settlement in the parallel Bank of America case makes the PTAB the first forum, and that the parent ’160 patent’s unpatentability for lacking a multi‑pass speech‑recognition limitation should extend to the child ’039 claims.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition to invalidate Dialect’s 8,447,607 patent covering multimodal speech processing. The challenger relies on Maes, Coffman and Ittycheriah references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 and urges the Board to institute the IPR.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Google (as petitioner) successfully challenged claim 12 of Dialect’s ’160 patent, which covers speech‑recognition handling of natural‑language utterances. The Board held the claim obvious over the Kennewick and Ross references and rendered it unpatentable.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect reached a settlement that led both parties to jointly move to terminate the inter partes review of patent 7,634,409 before the Board made an institution decision.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Dialect’s ’367 patent covering natural‑language speech processing. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over Belfiore, Kennewick, and Ross prior‑art references and seeks institution of the IPR.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect, LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025-01351 before institution, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet made an institution decision, and the parties seek confidentiality for the agreement.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of Dialect’s 2008 speech‑interface patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed a petition to invalidate Dialect’s 607 patent covering multimodal speech processing, arguing obviousness over Maes and a combination of Maes, Coffman, and Ittycheriah, and urging the PTAB to institute review.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect reached a settlement that resolves disputes over patent 8,620,659 and other patents, leading to a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review before the Board makes an institution decision.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 42 of Dialect’s ’659 patent, asserting lack of written description support and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review to invalidate the claim.
Perplexity AI, Inc. v.Comet ML, Inc.
Perplexity AI and Comet ML reached a settlement covering all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,650,968, prompting the PTAB to terminate the IPR before instituting trial and to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Perplexity AI, Inc. v.Comet ML, Inc.
Perplexity AI and Comet ML have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,650,968 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Perplexity AI, Inc. v.Comet ML, Inc.
Perplexity AI has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twelve claims of Comet ML’s neural‑network training patent. The challenger asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references—Baker, Lorenz, Shridhar, and Jenatton—under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VB Assets’ U.S. Patent 10,755,699, which covers a method for generating natural‑language responses adapted to a user’s manner of speaking. The petition alleges obviousness over three prior‑art references—Kennewick, Cooper, and Matsuda—under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft seeks to invalidate Dialect’s 9,495,957 patent covering natural‑language processing in mobile devices, arguing that claims 7 and 8 are obvious over prior art such as Maes, Coffman, Kennewick and Weissman, and urging the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Dialect’s 8,195,468 patent covering multimodal voice‑assistant technology, asserting obviousness over the Maes, Coffman, and Ittycheriah references. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references, creating a material error, and urges the Board to institute review.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging Perceptive Automata’s AI‑driven image‑analysis patent (U.S. 11,753,046). The petition asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues that many claim elements are non‑patentable printed matter.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging VB Assets’ U.S. Patent 11,080,758, asserting that all 44 claims are obvious over existing voice‑commerce technologies. The petition relies on six §103 grounds, pairing each claim set with prior‑art references such as Aretoulaki, Ramer, Kennewick, Hao and Jong.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Cerence Operating Company opposes Google’s request for Director Review, asserting the Board properly denied institution under 35 U.S.C. §314(a). The patent owner emphasizes due‑process compliance and the correct application of Fintiv factors.
Hugging Face, Inc. v.FriendliAI Inc.
Hugging Face and FriendliAI settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,442,775 B1, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement documents were ordered to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics, Google LLC and Cerence Operating Company have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 7,395,078, a speech‑recognition technology. Consequently, they filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, citing the settlement and early stage of the proceeding.
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.