Computer software — US PTAB Patent Cases
52 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 2 · 52 total
Strategy Inc v.Web3AI Technologies, LLC
Strategy Inc (formerly MicroStrategy) has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Web3AI's U.S. Patent 9,218,574 covering a user interface for machine‑learning results. The challenger alleges obviousness over a combination of four prior‑art references (Johnson, Lin, Purcell, Mihaylov) under § 103. No institution decision has been made yet.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.
Cisco Systems filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Damaka's U.S. 9,578,092 patent covering modular video‑conferencing functionality. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 for claims 1‑30.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 20 claims of Damaka’s ’046 patent covering modular video‑conferencing software. The petition relies on four prior‑art references—Abuan, Ludwig, Lawson and Guzman—to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the challenge to patent 9,042,448 owned by Advanced Coding Technologies.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research settled its patent claims against Apple, licensing the patents and withdrawing related allegations, while the broader litigation against Amazon continues.
Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
Foleon’s request for Director review to impose an adverse judgment on Turtl Surf & Immerse was denied. The Patent Owner argued procedural impropriety and reliance on established PTAB precedent rejecting adverse judgments after a disclaimer.
Meta Platform Inc. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sterling Computers' ’217 patent covering email relevance scoring. The petition relies on five obviousness grounds using Dumais, Kircher, Krug, and Marston references. No secondary considerations are asserted.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Malikie’s ’571 patent covering application control on electronic devices, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
Carbyne, Inc. filed an authorized response opposing Tritech Software Systems’ Director Review request to overturn the institution of an IPR. The petitioner asserts the request is procedurally barred and that the patent owner’s reliance on its own prosecution statements is proper.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking trade‑secret protections under the CFR. The request seeks to limit public disclosure and to be notified of any access requests.
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
Wapp Tech successfully opposed Capital One’s request for Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR, arguing the petitioner misapplied statutory requirements and presented no valid procedural violations.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Technologies Inc.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑5 and 9‑13 of U.S. Patent 9,235,428, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references covering web proxies and GUI rendering.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
The USPTO denied Microsoft’s request to institute an Inter Partes Review of Dialect’s patents, citing the patents’ long‑standing ownership and a parallel district‑court case. No trial will proceed.
International Business Machines Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 container‑technology patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as McMillan and Schaefer. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) is unwarranted.
International Business Machines Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
IBM has filed a petition for inter partes review of VirtaMove’s U.S. Patent 7,784,058, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art relating to shared libraries and OS kernel functions. The petition details two grounds of obviousness and argues against discretionary denial.
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Oracle has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 container‑technology patent, arguing the claims are obvious over existing container systems such as VServer, Solaris Zones, and Zap pods.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The Board granted the joint motion and ordered the settlement to remain confidential.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking trade‑secret protections under the CFR. The motion seeks Board‑only access and notification of any disclosure requests.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
The PTAB denied Microsoft’s petition for an inter partes review of five patents owned by Dialect, LLC, exercising discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board cited the patents’ age, subsidiary ownership, and a parallel district court case as reasons to avoid duplication.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). They argue the agreement contains highly sensitive business information that could harm their interests if disclosed.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,784,058 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided on institution, making termination permissible under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove have settled all disputes over Patent 7,784,058 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and cloud‑migration startup VirtaMove settled their inter‑partes review dispute before trial, leading the Board to terminate the IPRs and keep the settlement confidential.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’814 virtualization patent, prompting a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and virtualization startup VirtaMove settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,519,814, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion to terminate IPR 2025-00850 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’814 patent. The Board is asked to end the inter partes review and keep the agreement confidential.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b), citing the sensitivity of the information.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties contend the agreement contains highly sensitive business information that could harm them if disclosed.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 7,519,814. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the lack of an institution decision and the settlement agreement. The Board is asked to grant the termination and keep the agreement confidential.
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.