Software — US PTAB Patent Cases
34 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 2 · 34 total
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑35 of SoftView’s ’154 patent, asserting obviousness over Zaurus, Pad++, SVG and SVF prior art and arguing that the claims are patentably indistinct from already invalidated claims in related patents.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 115 claims of SoftView’s ’889 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over Zaurus, Pad++, and SVG references and are indistinct from previously cancelled claims in related patents.
Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
Foleon seeks a Director review to compel entry of adverse judgment after Turtl Surf disclaimed all challenged claims of its interactive‑document patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred in denying a motion for adverse judgment, citing precedent where such judgments were entered pre‑institution.
Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
Foleon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Turtl’s ’290 patent covering modular document generation, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
Carbyne, Inc. sought a rehearing of the Director Review in IPR2025-00959, but the USPTO denied the request. The decision leaves the original patent enforcement order in place.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
The Director denied the institution of IPR2025-00959, vacating a prior decision because Carbyne failed to explain inconsistencies in its claim construction arguments between district court and PTAB.
Citrix Systems, Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra LLC
Citrix Systems and Cloud Software Group moved to withdraw their IPR against K.Mizra’s 8.2 million‑patent. The Patent Owner did not oppose, and the Board is expected to terminate the proceeding.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under trade‑secret rules. The request cites statutory authority to limit public disclosure of the agreement.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties argue the agreement contains highly sensitive information that could harm their businesses if disclosed.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion seeks to keep the agreement separate from the public patent file and restrict access.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute over Patent 7,784,058. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement confidential.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has requested Director Review of four IPRs against VirtaMove's software migration patent. The Patent Owner may respond within five business days with a limited brief and no new evidence.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
The Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the institution decisions in four IPRs involving VirtaMove's patent, leaving the institution denials in place.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google’s request to rehear the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for VirtaMove’s migration patent was rejected. The Director relied on statutory authority and workload considerations to deny institution.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
The PTAB Director denied Google’s petitions for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs involving VirtaMove’s patent 7,519,814. No further substantive review of the patent’s validity was undertaken.
Carvana, LLC v.International Business Machines Corporation
Carvana petitions the PTAB to invalidate IBM’s ’719 patent covering a dual‑MVC web architecture, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier MVC and JavaScript publications.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 27 claims of X1 Discovery’s 9,633,139 patent covering incremental multi‑string search. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Lotus Notes, Raskin, Wu and over Entourage, True, and Baeza‑Yates references.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon files a response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against NL Giken, arguing the Board’s claim constructions are correct and discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
iCharts LLC filed an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Tableau Software’s request for director review of the institution decision. The response emphasizes that the dissent does not merit reversal and that Tableau failed the reasonable‑likelihood test under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software has filed a request for Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against its interactive‑chart patent. The petition contends the Board erred on claim constructions, the disclosure of a second website, and motivation to combine prior art references.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision denying institution of its IPR against iCharts’ interactive‑chart patent. The petitioner contends the Board erred on claim constructions, motivation to combine, and QlikView disclosures.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
The USPTO Director denied Tableau Software’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2024-01388, leaving the original decision intact. No new arguments or evidence altered the Board’s assessment.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts’ ’595 patent covering interactive chart creation. The petition alleges all 18 claims are obvious over prior‑art tools such as Rostoker and QlikView manuals, invoking 35 U.S.C. §103.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana and Veeva settled their dispute over patents 9,055,023 and 9,391,937, leading the PTAB to terminate both inter partes review proceedings before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered confidential and kept separate from the patent files.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
Cyandia challenges SAP’s institution of an IPR on its notification‑alert patent, asserting the Board ignored key prior‑art and misapplied written‑description analysis. The patent owner seeks director review to vacate the decision.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cyandia’s WebSphere‑related patent, arguing the Board’s reliance on speculative overlap and misapplication of Sotera precedent. The petition urges the Director to overturn the denial and institute review.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
The PTAB denied Adobe’s request for Director Review of the institution decision on patent 6,757,828, leaving the institution intact.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
HighLevel seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against ClickFunnels, arguing the Board overstepped authority by applying the new Hulu rule retroactively. The petition asks the Director to hold the decision pending the Federal Circuit’s pending §101 appeal.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
HighLevel, Inc. filed a preliminary reply urging the PTAB to institute its IPR against ClickFunnels’ patent on website navigation. The petitioner argues the new references were never before the Office and are not cumulative, so the Board should not deny institution under §325(d).
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
HighLevel, Inc. challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against ClickFunnels, arguing the Board overstepped authority by applying a new §101‑based rule retroactively. The petitioner seeks Director Review to pause the decision pending the Federal Circuit’s appeal.
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.