Cybersecurity — US PTAB Patent Cases
88 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 3 · 88 total
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking institution of a challenge to all 34 claims of Orca Security’s cloud‑snapshot patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging Orca Security’s U.S. Patent No. 11,627,154, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Keren and Morgan. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of PayGeo’s U.S. Patent 12,014,347, asserting that its ten claims covering multi‑factor authentication are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Grigg, Carter, and Google’s 2‑step verification. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The PTAB Director has sent a review request for IPR2025-00068 and IPR2025-00070, instructing CrowdStrike to file a concise response without new evidence. The email sets a five‑page limit and a five‑day deadline for filing.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
GoSecure seeks Director Review to vacate the institution of two IPRs filed by CrowdStrike that challenge all 21 claims of U.S. Patent 9,954,872. The patent owner alleges the Board abused discretion by allowing duplicate petitions, misapplying claim ambiguity, and incorrectly construing “computer system.”
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
GoSecure seeks Director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of two parallel IPRs filed by CrowdStrike, arguing procedural abuse, improper claim construction, and lack of exceptional circumstances.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike filed a response urging the PTAB to deny GoSecure’s second request for Director review, arguing that all discretionary denial arguments were previously waived. The Board had already rejected those arguments, limiting the dispute to claim construction of “association.”
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
GoSecure seeks Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of CrowdStrike’s IPR against patent 9,954,872, alleging the Board ignored binding precedent and misapplied claim construction. The request highlights inefficiencies, settled expectations, and unfair dealings.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike defends two PTAB petitions challenging GoSecure’s cybersecurity patent, emphasizing differing constructions of the term “association” and supporting claim constructions with the Capalik prior art. The response rebuts GoSecure’s arguments against the Board’s institution of parallel petitions and the definition of “computer system.”
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied CrowdStrike's request for a review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00070, leaving the institution of GoSecure's patent 9,954,872 B2 in place. No substantive patentability issues were addressed.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike filed a response defending the Board’s decision to institute two parallel IPRs against GoSecure’s cybersecurity patent, emphasizing proper claim constructions for “association” and “computer system.” The petitioner argues the Board’s reasoning aligns with precedent and that the prior‑art reference Capalik renders the claims obvious.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
GoSecure has submitted a Director Review request for IPR2025-00068, prompting CrowdStrike to file a concise, evidence‑free response within five business days.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate GoSecure’s 9,954,872 patent on the basis that its claims are obvious over a series of prior‑art references covering malware activity monitoring and intrusion detection.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike seeks IPR of GoSecure’s U.S. Patent 9,954,872 covering methods for detecting unauthorized computer activities. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Capalik, King, Pike, and Farley, and urges the Board to institute the review.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate GoSecure’s 9,106,697 patent covering virtual‑machine‑based malware detection. The petition argues obviousness over Capalik combined with King, Pike, and Farley, and opposes discretionary denial.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The Director granted review of an institution decision in a patent dispute between CrowdStrike and GoSecure. The case is now remanded to the PTAB to determine which petition, if any, should proceed after claim construction.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for CrowdStrike against GoSecure, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for CrowdStrike against GoSecure, finding that the correct claim construction was already established in a related proceeding.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The Director granted review of the institution decision in a dispute between CrowdStrike and GoSecure, vacating the initial orders. The case is remanded for the Board to determine which claim construction (broader or narrower) should be used before deciding on trial.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The PTAB denied CrowdStrike's IPR against GoSecure's patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on the grounds of obviousness. The Board specifically rejected the petitioner's argument that prior art taught fingerprint generation within a virtual machine monitor.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00276 concerning patent 11,777,976. The parties cite a settlement agreement and argue that early dismissal saves costs and resources.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
Normshield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement that led the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00276 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
Normshield has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight’s 11,777,976 patent covering methods for generating composite security ratings. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art from Tippett and McGovern, supported by extensive public‑domain cybersecurity references.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.
Home Depot filed a response defending the PTAB’s institution decision, asserting that all Fintiv factors favor proceeding with the IPR and that the Board correctly interpreted claim language.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Palo Alto Networks and Croga Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,223,601, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Palo Alto Networks petitions the PTAB to invalidate Croga Innovations’ ’601 patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering content isolation and proxy authentication for collaboration software.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. filed a petition challenging Orca Security Ltd.'s patent via IPR, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Veselov and Basavapatna. The petitioner argues that combining these two references teaches every limitation of the challenged cloud security claims.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,740,926. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, which the Board granted, sealing the settlement agreement.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and restrict its access.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,740,926 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding before a final written decision was issued.
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.