Materials science — US PTAB Patent Cases
34 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 2 · 34 total
Univacco Technology Inc. v.LEONHARD KURZ Stiftung & Co., KG
Univacco Technology Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of the ‘935 decorative‑foil patent, alleging lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and indefiniteness. The petition relies on extensive expert analysis of the patent’s functional language and missing test protocols.
Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH
Albany International Corp. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Voith Patent GmbH regarding patent number 11261566, challenging all 15 claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found sufficient evidence to support the Petitioner's arguments that combinations of prior art references render the claimed features predictable in textile manufacturing.
Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Clearwater Paper Corporation against Graphic Packaging International LLC, challenging claims related to biodegradable paper cups based on prior art references Cleveland and Nakagawa.
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. et al. v.Kolon Industries, Inc.
Hyosung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Kolon’s 9,789,731 patent covering hybrid nylon‑aramid tire cords, arguing that all seven claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Director granted review of an IPR decision, vacating the institution finding for one set of grounds (Ishigaki-based) because the Board introduced external evidence, but maintained institution for the remaining claims.
Caihong Display Devices Co. Ltd. v.Corning Inc.
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Corning’s 2010 glass‑substrate patent, asserting obviousness over Miwa and Bange and anticipation by Miwa. The petition includes an expert declaration and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ArcelorMittal
POSCO Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal's patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 25 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness (103) involving various prior art combinations.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ArcelorMittal
POSCO Co., Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal's patent (10961602) regarding coated steel/aluminum alloys for automotive parts. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, instituting the challenge across 30 claims.
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
Honeywell International Inc. challenged the validity of patent 10280532 in a PTAB petition, alleging obviousness based on combinations of prior art references. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated material error by the Examiner and instituted the case for trial.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials seeks to block the PTAB Director's review of its successful institution of an IPR against SK Nexilis' 11,591,706 patent covering advanced material technology.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
SK Nexilis seeks a Director Review to keep its copper‑electroplating patent alive after the PTAB instituted an IPR. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and over‑relied on unsupported expert testimony.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, instituting trial on all 10 claims. The grounds centered on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), arguing that specific properties of electrolytic copper foil could be achieved by combining various prior art references.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The Director denied institution of Inter Partes Review in a dispute between Solus Advanced Materials and SK Nexilis, citing the Fintiv holistic assessment.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge brought by Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. against SK nexilis Co., Ltd.'s patent, finding insufficient evidence to support obviousness claims. The Board rejected the petitioner's reliance on hindsight bias when attempting to combine prior art references.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' request for rehearing, upholding the initial decision to deny institution of IPR against SK nexilis regarding surface roughness claims. The Board found insufficient evidence of motivation to combine prior art references.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.'s request for rehearing was denied after the PTAB initially denied institution of IPR against SK nexilis Co., Ltd.'s copper foil patent, upholding the finding that obviousness claims lacked sufficient evidence.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies opposes the patent owner's request for director review, arguing the deposition dispute is moot and that the cited references are printed publications supporting the institution of inter partes review.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies has initiated an IPR challenging the patentability of barocaloric cooling and heating agents held by Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Xie, Mañosa, and Patel.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies successfully secured institution of its Inter Partes Review (IPR) against the '656 patent, challenging claims related to barocaloric cooling agents. The Board adopted a broad interpretation of 'organic material,' supporting the Petitioner's argument that the claimed invention is unpatentable over prior art references like Mañosa and Patel.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR No. 2024‑00898, seeking confidential treatment of their settlement agreement under 35 U.S.C. §317. The parties argue the settlement resolves all issues concerning patent 10,981,350.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution has filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,636,649, arguing that the claims related to Carbon Nanotube Composites are obvious. The challenge relies heavily on multiple prior art references demonstrating that the claimed features were already known in the field.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully instituted its IPR against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC's patent (9636649) covering polymer composites. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across all 23 claims based on multiple prior art combinations.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
ArcelorMittal seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR covering claims 1‑30 of its high‑strength aluminum alloy‑coated steel patent. The owner contends the Board abused its discretion by misapplying Fintiv factors, particularly Factor One and Factor Four, in violation of §314(a).
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
ArcelorMittal seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering claims 1‑25 of its high‑strength steel patent, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and should have denied institution.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
POSCO seeks IPR cancellation of ArcelorMittal’s hot‑stamped coated steel patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
POSCO has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of ArcelorMittal’s 2021 steel‑coating patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
POSCO Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal's patent, arguing that multiple prior art combinations render the claims unpatentable under 102 and 103. The Board found sufficient merit in the petition, despite factors favoring discretionary denial, leading to the institution of the review on all 25 challenged claims.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
The Director denied review of institution decisions in the POSCO v. ArcelorMittal IPRs and remanded the case to the PTAB to manage multiple parallel challenges.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding that POSCO Co., Ltd. demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim against ArcelorMittal's patent. The Board found grounds for anticipation and obviousness across all 30 claims based on prior art including Engels, Takagi, and GMW14400.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
The Director denied review requests in the POSCO v. ArcelorMittal IPR proceedings and remanded the case to the PTAB to manage multiple parallel petitions.
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.