Information technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
23 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 23 total
Microsoft Corporation v.ToutVirtual, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of ToutVirtual’s ‘667 patent covering virtual system management, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of AccuSearch’s ’184 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists eight §103 grounds covering the full claim set.
X Corp., v.Search & Share Technologies, LLC
X Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of the ’952 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Malla, Walther, and Smadja references under §§ 102 and 103.
CYBERSECURE IPS, LLC et al. v.Network Integrity Systems, Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01441 after a merits review. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
Election Systems & Software, LLC v.Hart InterCivic, Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for PGR2025-00066 after reviewing the merits. The denial was based on the petitioner failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were unpatentable.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Nutanix successfully defended the Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Tessell, arguing that assignor estoppel does not apply and that there is no statutory right to institution.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPR against Nutanix’s patent 10,817,157. The petition argues the Director exceeded authority under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) by applying assignor estoppel, which Federal Circuit precedent bars in IPRs.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 11,178,104. The parties cite statutory authority to protect the agreement’s commercial details.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
Meta Platforms successfully challenged Sterling Computers Corporation's patent for content relevance techniques in a PTAB IPR. The Board found that the patent was obvious over prior art (Rose and Bieganski) and adopted Petitioner’s claim constructions, leading to an institution decision.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB denied Wiz, Inc.'s IPR petition against Orca Security Ltd. because the Patent Owner had disclaimed all challenged claims prior to institution.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
The PTAB denied X1 Discovery’s request for an extension to file Director Review briefs in three IPRs against Microsoft, finding no good cause. The Board emphasized that prior case law does not excuse delayed filings.
X Corp. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
X Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sterling Computers’ 7,716,217 patent covering email relevance scoring, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over prior art such as Dumais, Kircher, Krug, and Marston. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
X Corp. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
X Corp.'s IPR petition against Sterling Computers Corporation's patent (7716217) was instituted, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board found that combining Kircher and Krug would motivate a POSITA to improve relevance scoring in email content ranking.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of Veeva's email‑control patent, arguing obviousness over a set of prior‑art publications and urging the Board to institute the review.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for SAP America against Cyandia. The Board specifically found that key limitations regarding 'determining a notification method' lacked written description support in the original application.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The PTAB denied SAP's request to institute IPR against Cyandia's patent (8751948), citing copending district court litigation in Texas. The Board determined the overlapping issues made IPR redundant.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
Security Technology, LLC asks the PTAB Director to deny institution of an IPR filed by Home Depot, arguing the panel misapplied Fintiv discretionary factors and that the petitioner's expert testimony is weak. The request highlights the close timing of the district‑court trial and the substantial prior investment in parallel litigation.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’905 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on Ludtke and Kon prior art and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioner's motion to exclude evidence and ultimately found that the challenged claims were not unpatentable over the cited prior art combinations. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'image capture device,' defining it as an imaging-based barcode reader, rejecting the petitioner’s broader interpretation including laser scanners.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Reolink Innovation Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103). The challenge targets core P2P networking and video streaming claims against THROUGHTEK CO., LTD.'s patent.
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
SAP America and ISIX IP reached a settlement, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review of patent 6,308,178. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo notified the PTAB that, following a settlement with Intellectual Ventures II, it will not submit a response to the patent owner's Director Review request, effectively ending the IPR proceeding.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa challenges Cortex MCP's patent (9251531) in an IPR, arguing that the credential management technology is obvious over prior art. The petitioner asserts that existing methods for tokenization and verifiable electronic credentials render the claims unpatentable.
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.