US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 126 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
· IPR2024-01207
Stellar, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Motorola Solutions’ patents, arguing misapplication of Fintiv factor analysis and the "compelling merits" standard.
patent terminated or settled
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
· IPR2024-01122
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPRs covering patent 9,289,016. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
· IPR2024-01191
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to limit access to the agreement to the parties and the Board.
patent terminated or settled
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
· IPR2024-01123
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,295,288 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
patent terminated or settled
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
· IPR2024-01190
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,740,926 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding before a final written decision was issued.
patent
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-01038
Canadian Solar petitions the PTAB to cancel Claims 16 and 19 of Maxeon’s 2022 solar‑cell patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is inapplicable.
patent
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-01038
The USPTO issued a proposed rulemaking that would amend PTAB practice for discretionary denial, parallel/serial petitions, and settlement handling in inter partes reviews. The changes aim to formalize current practice, improve efficiency, and reduce duplicate challenges in solar‑technology patents such as U.S. 11251315.
patent
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
· IPR2024-01105
Procter & Gamble seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s finding that its aluminum‑free deodorant stick patent is obvious. The company argues the Board misinterpreted claim 15’s hardness test and failed to show a motivation to combine disparate prior art.
patent
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01095
Pictiva Displays has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s Institution Decision in an IPR against Samsung Display. The request argues that the Board improperly relied on a now‑rescinded Guidance Memo and over‑emphasized a Sand Revolution stipulation, while under‑considering the imminent district‑court trial.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
· IPR2024-01088
Apple filed an authorized response opposing Smith Interface’s Director Review request, arguing the PTAB correctly applied obviousness law to the touch‑and‑hold gesture combination. The Board’s factual findings and motivation‑to‑combine analysis were supported by extensive record evidence and expert testimony.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01131
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
· IPR2024-01088
Apple challenges the obviousness finding of U.S. Patent 10,656,758 covering touch‑gesture menus. The patent owner requests Director Review, arguing the Board relied on hindsight and lacked a proper motivation for combining prior‑art references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.
patent denied
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01180
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Headwater Research’s ’184 patent on differential traffic control was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach the claimed blocking of Internet service requests, so no reasonable likelihood of unpatentability was shown.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2024-01248
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Collision Communications' patent. The Board found no basis to overturn the institution denial.
patent terminated or settled
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
· IPR2024-01076
Medela and M.E.A.C. Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,858,534 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet instituted the IPR, and the parties seek confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
patent
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
· IPR2024-01179
Solaris defends the PTAB's finding that Masaba’s conveyor patent is obvious, emphasizing lack of nexus and proper expert testimony. The response rebuts Masaba’s secondary‑considerations arguments and procedural objections.
patent terminated or settled
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-01246
Samsung and ASUS settled their inter partes review disputes over patent 10,986,585, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before trial. The settlement documents were ordered kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
· IPR2024-01076
Medela and M.E.A.C. Engineering settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,858,534 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding before any trial, keeping the settlement confidential.
patent terminated or settled
Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.
· IPR2024-01074
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,880,075 B1. The parties filed a joint motion to withdraw the IPR petition, and the Board terminated the proceeding, sealing the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent terminated or settled
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-01175
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 6,856,701 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
patent terminated or settled
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01162
Dyson and Omachron settled their PTAB inter partes review disputes, leading to termination of four IPRs covering Dyson vacuum technology patents. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
patent
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
· IPR2024-01174
P&G filed a Director Review request seeking to overturn an IPR finding that its aluminum‑free deodorant patent was obvious. The company argues the Board misinterpreted claim 8’s hardness test and failed to show a proper motivation to combine disparate prior art. It also raises a real‑party‑in‑interest defect.
patent
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-01175
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over patent 6,856,701 and jointly request that the settlement documents be kept confidential, moving to terminate the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2024-01132
BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR disputes, leading to withdrawal of Director Review requests for three proceedings.
