US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 121 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-01287
Charter Communications' IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies' DOCSIS auto‑configuration patent is challenged by the patent owner, who argues the petitioner's reply adds new, undisclosed arguments, violating the IPR rules. The patent owner seeks dismissal of the new arguments and confirmation of the patent's validity.
patent
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01288
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,661 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-01217
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,104,658 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits, and the parties cite statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for ending the proceeding.
patent
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01207
Motorola seeks rehearing of the PTAB Director’s order that vacated institution of its IPR on a body‑camera patent, arguing the rescission of prior guidance violates the APA and due process.
patent instituted
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
· IPR2024-01157
The PTAB instituted an IPR on Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care likely to prevail on at least one claim, based on anticipation and obviousness arguments over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Garrison references.
patent
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01285
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its eight IPR petitions covering a body‑camera patent, arguing the PTAB must honor prior guidance that barred discretionary denial of institution.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
· IPR2024-01101
The PTAB held that claims 13–15 and 17–20 of U.S. Patent 8,307,286 are unpatentable after finding the petitioner’s prior‑art references anticipate or render the claims obvious. The decision resolves the consolidated IPRs and denies the patent owner’s motions.
patent
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01205
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024‑01205, arguing the Patent Owner’s Director Review request is moot and the Board acted correctly under Fintiv factor analysis.
patent
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01206
Motorola’s petition to institute an IPR against Stellar’s 9,485,471 patent is challenged by Stellar, which seeks Director Review alleging the Board misapplied Fintiv factor guidance and failed to find compelling merits. The request targets claims 1‑13 of the patent.
patent
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01205
Motorola seeks rehearing of the USPTO Director’s decision to vacate institution of its IPRs covering body‑camera patents, arguing the rescission of prior guidance violates the APA and due process. It offers an expanded stipulation to satisfy discretionary standards.
patent denied
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
· IPR2024-01352
The PTAB denied Adobe’s request for Director Review of the institution decision on patent 6,757,828, leaving the institution intact.
patent denied
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01284
Stellar, LLC petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn institution of 19 claims of its ’540 patent. The Director found the Board erred on Fintiv factors and denied institution, preserving Motorola Solutions’ position.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-01281
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request in IPR2024-01281. Cisco must respond within five business days, limited to 15 pages and without new evidence.
patent terminated or settled
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2024-01282
Cisco and Croga Innovations settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,738,368, resulting in a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding without a merits decision.
patent
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01280
RAI Strategic Holdings defends its ’202 patent against Demand Vape's IPR challenge, asserting the Board correctly applied Advanced Bionics precedent and that Fintiv factors favor denial due to an overlapping ITC case.
patent
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01205
Stellar, LLC seeks Director Review of the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against Motorola Solutions' wireless patents, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factor guidance and failed to find compelling merits.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-01281
Cisco Systems submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Lionra Technologies’ request for review of the Board’s decision that all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 7,738,471 are unpatentable. Cisco argues the Board correctly applied Axonics precedent and that the prior art teaches the disputed limitation.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-01281
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that Cisco’s high‑speed packet‑processing claims are unpatentable. The patent owner contends the Board erred in accepting a new reply theory and misapplied inherency standards.
patent denied
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
· IPR2024-01238
Arista Networks’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s earlier denial was rejected. The Patent Owner contended that the cited prior art fails to teach the patent’s core limitation of concurrent network‑path failure.
patent terminated or settled
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
· IPR2024-01277
Apple and NL Giken have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,948,968. The parties filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
patent
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2024-01221
Early Warning Services filed an authorized response defending its right to submit new evidence with a reply to the patent owner’s preliminary response in IPR2024‑01221. The brief argues that the Board’s discretion was properly exercised and that the patent owner had no due‑process prejudice.
patent terminated or settled
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-01267
Samsung and Cerence jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01267 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement as confidential and ending the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
· IPR2024-01191
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,775,326, jointly moving to terminate the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
· IPR2024-01265
3Shape and Medit settled their inter partes review dispute over patent 9,262,864 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the Board granted the motion, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement confidential.
