technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
167 decisions indexed
Page 5 of 6 · 167 total
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) involving Google and Mullen Industries. The decision vacated the initial grant of institution based on a holistic review of Fintiv factors.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of an IPR for Mullen Industries against Google LLC et al.'s patent 9204283, vacating the initial Board decision based on Fintiv factors.
TikTok Inc. v.DiStefano Website Innovations, LLC
Institution of IPR2025-01061 was granted by the USPTO, allowing the challenge to proceed despite a stay on related proceedings.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenging patent 6888181, allowing Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited to proceed against Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO Board denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition filed by Monahan Products against Baby Jogger regarding patent 8955869.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO denied institution for an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding involving Monahan Products and Baby Jogger regarding patent 9403550.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied the institution of multiple IPRs filed by Union Electric Company against MES, Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent claims.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied institution for multiple IPR petitions filed by Union Electric Company et al. against MES, Inc., preventing a trial from taking place.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for several IPR proceedings involving Apple Inc. and CardWare Inc., meaning no trial will take place.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied the institution of IPR proceedings, including one involving Apple Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent claims.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple IPR petitions, halting the review process before any trial could begin.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied institution for the IPR challenge against CommScope's patent 10996417.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01121 in the dispute between Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power Equipment because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Evenflo Company, Inc. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01122 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. This moves the case forward to a merits trial.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Director denied institution for the IPR proceedings involving Aerin Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., halting further trial.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Board denied the institution of several IPR petitions, meaning no trials will proceed for these challenges.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Director denied institution for several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, including IPR2025-01126. This procedural denial means no trial will be held on the challenged patents.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Office Director denied institution of inter partes review (IPR2025-01127) for the challenged patent, meaning no trial will proceed on the claims.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR proceedings initiated by Caihong Display Devices against Corning regarding patent 8627684.
Evenflo Company, Inc. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01140 and related proceedings after determining the petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard. This moves the cases forward to merits review.
Apple Inc. v.LS Cable & System Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Board denied institution of the IPR for Apple Inc. against LS Cable & System Ltd., finding that Apple failed to meet the legal threshold required to proceed with the challenge.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
The USPTO Board denied institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving Microsoft and Lemko, meaning no trial will proceed.
ProAmpac Holdings Inc. v.Sigma Technologies Int'l, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01143 for ProAmpac Holdings Inc., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution of the IPR petition filed by Apple Inc. against CardWare Inc.'s patent 10339520, meaning no trial will proceed.
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01241 and several other proceedings, allowing the merits phase of review to proceed.
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for five IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01042, IPR2025-01241, IPR2025-01264, IPR2025-01153, and IPR2025-01242) after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01245, allowing the trial to proceed on merits.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
The USPTO Board issued mixed institution decisions across multiple IPR and PGR proceedings, granting trials in some cases while denying them in others based on likelihood of prevailing.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against patent 9651533 involving Samsung Electronics and Omni Medsci.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01251, allowing SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. to challenge OMNI MEDSCI, INC.'s patent 10874304.
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.