technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
167 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 6 · 167 total
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01395, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Luxottica of America Inc. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01512, allowing Luxottica to challenge E-Vision's patent 11971612 on the merits.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied institution for Google LLC's IPR against Secure Communication Technologies regarding patent 11995685. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01402 because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims. The decision was based on a merits review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Institution for Inter Partes Review (IPR) was granted in IPR2025-01566 after the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Kannuu Pty. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00072, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Kannuu's patent 11200252.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01303 involving Cisco Systems and Dynamic Mesh Networks after reviewing the merits. This allows the proceeding to move forward to a full trial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01431 after reviewing the merits and finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Other proceedings were denied based on discretionary or non-discretionary factors.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00050, allowing the challenger to proceed to merits review based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Samsara, Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR proceeding (IPR2026-00034) involving Samsara, Inc. and Motive Technologies, Inc., finding the petitioner failed to meet the standard for likelihood of prevailing.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied institution for IPR2025-01277, meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted institution for several Inter Partes Review proceedings after petitioners demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their challenges. Other cases were denied based on discretionary or merits reviews.
RJ Brands, LLC d/b/a Chefman v.SharkNinja Operating LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01530 and several other proceedings after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This moves the cases forward to merits review.
SCIENTIFIC DRILLING INTERNATIONAL, INC. v.Gunnar LLLP
The PTAB denied institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR) for patent 12110780. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were unpatentable.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The Director vacated institution decisions in the TikTok vs. Cellspin IPRs, denying petitions because TikTok failed to prove it was not controlled by a foreign government at the time of filing.
Nicholson Manufacturing Ltd. et al. v.BID GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The USPTO Board issued mixed institution decisions across multiple IPR and PGR proceedings. Several cases were granted for trial based on likelihood of prevailing, while others were denied due to lack of merit or discretionary concerns.
Kia America, Inc. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the Post-Grant Review (PGR) for Kia America against Emerging Automotive, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The USPTO Board granted institution for PGR2026-00003 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of the Post-Grant Review (PGR) in a dispute involving Hippocratic AI's patent 12142371, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the necessary likelihood of prevailing standard.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2024-00437, meaning the challenger's claims against Comcast were not moved forward.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR against Proxense because a related review of the same patent had already been instituted in another proceeding.
Google LLC v.--
The PTAB denied Google's attempt to file a second IPR against PROXENSE's patent because the Board had already instituted an earlier review.
Google LLC v.--
Google LLC's attempt to challenge patent 9,679,289 B1 was denied by the PTAB because a prior inter partes review (IPR) of the same patent had already been instituted.
Google LLC v.--
Google LLC's attempt to challenge a patent via IPR was denied by the PTAB because another, earlier petition challenging the same patent had already been instituted.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Microsoft's request to institute Inter Partes Review against Proxense's patent because a related review was already underway.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Microsoft's request to institute Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Proxense's patent 8,886,954. The denial was based on a procedural condition that required prior non-institution in a related proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied the institution of IPR2024-01396 concerning patent 9647918, vacating a prior decision. The proceeding is now at a procedural standstill.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied the request to institute Inter Partes Review (IPR) regarding patent 9179359 between Samsung and Headwater Research.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Western Digital Technologies against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Proxense's patent 8,886,954, finding that the petition did not warrant institution as a second challenge.
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.