IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 6 of 218 · 6,517 total
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied iRhythm’s petitions for review of the USPTO’s discretionary denial to institute several IPRs against Welch Allyn, leaving the original institution denials in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
Samsung’s challenge to Molecular Rebar Design’s lithium‑ion battery patent was rejected. The PTAB held that none of the eight claims were obvious over the cited prior art, leaving the patent fully intact.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm’s request to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for its cardiac monitor patent was met with a detailed response from Welch Allyn, asserting the Director’s holistic discretionary denial was proper under §314(a). The Board’s denial stands pending any further review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The Board instituted an inter partes review of Samsung's petition covering claims 1‑5 of patent 8,968,924 and granted Samsung’s motion to join an existing IPR, terminating the separate proceeding.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm's request to overturn the PTAB Director's denial of institution was rejected. The Board affirmed that the denial was based on a holistic review and that the petition lacked evidence and new factual support.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
Welch Allyn’s patent survived a director’s discretionary denial after iRhythm’s request for review was rejected. The Board affirmed the Director’s holistic assessment and found no procedural violations.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla’s petition to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 7,181,743 was denied after the Board found no abuse of discretion. The Board held that the prior‑art reference Welch does not disclose the claimed event‑correlation capabilities.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
An email from the PTAB Director informs the parties that a Director Review request has been filed for IPR2025-00363 and related cases, outlining a five‑page, five‑day response window and prohibiting new evidence.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB Acting Director's discretionary denial of its IPR petitions against Welch Allyn’s wearable cardiac‑monitor patents. The petitioner argues the new "settled expectations" rule was applied retroactively, violates precedent, and harms patent quality.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Samsung's challenge to claims 1‑8 of U.S. Patent 8,808,909 and granted Samsung’s motion to join the earlier IPR filed by LG Energy Solution, consolidating the disputes.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks a Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Stratasys’s 8,747,097 patent. The petitioner argues the denial violates statutory requirements and recent guidance on Sotera stipulations. The request highlights examiner error and lack of settled expectations by the patent owner.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
Samsung’s IPR challenge to Molecular Rebar Design’s lithium‑ion battery patent was rejected; the Board found no unpatentable claims after concluding the petitioner’s obviousness arguments were unsupported.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The Director denied iRhythm's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00374, leaving the denial of institution in place.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys, the owner of U.S. Pat. 8,747,097 covering 3‑D printing technology, has responded to a challenger’s request for Director Review, arguing the request is untimely and lacks a statutory basis. The patent owner urges the Director to deny the review.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied iRhythm's request for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs against Welch Allyn, leaving the institution denials in place.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group and its affiliate have filed a response urging the PTAB Director to deny a late request by the patent owner that includes unauthorized new evidence. The petitioners argue procedural violations and cite Fintiv discretionary factors to support denial.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Court decision.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The PTAB notified iRhythm and Welch Allyn that director review requests have been filed for several IPRs, giving the patent owner a five‑day window to submit a limited response without new evidence.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
An email from the PTAB Director informs Welch Allyn that iRhythm’s Director Review requests for multiple IPRs have been received, outlining a five‑business‑day deadline for a concise response and prohibiting new evidence.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB Director has received review requests for IPR2025-00349, -00350, and -00351. The petitioner must respond within five days, limited to five pages, with no new evidence.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody has filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition challenging Hyperice’s percussive massage patent, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm petitions the PTAB to institute IPR on Welch Allyn’s 9,155,484 wearable ECG sensor patent, asserting obviousness over Matsumura, Jensen and Ozguz. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ArcelorMittal
POSCO has filed an IPR petition challenging ArcelorMittal’s 2021 steel‑coating patent, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering hot‑stamped steel processes.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ArcelorMittal
POSCO has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of ArcelorMittal’s hot‑stamped coated steel patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition argues that the references were not considered during prosecution and that a skilled artisan would have combined them to achieve the claimed inventions.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, arguing obviousness over Jensen, Matsumura and Kroll. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed a petition for inter partes review of Welch Allyn’s U.S. Patent 10,159,422 covering a wearable ECG sensor. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references—Matsumura, Jensen, and Ozguz—and asks the PTAB to cancel them.
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC
Twitch Interactive has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of RazDog’s cloud‑based content‑aggregation patent, arguing obviousness over Darnell, Kim, and Dasgupta references. The petition stresses favorable discretionary factors for institution.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology petitions to invalidate 17 claims of Stratasys' 3D‑printer patent, arguing that a combination of prior‑art references makes the claims obvious. The petition also challenges a discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 26 claims of the ’441 patent, alleging anticipation or obviousness over a wide range of prior‑art streaming patents. The petition argues that the Board should not deny the request and requests institution of the review.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.