US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 134 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent terminated or settled
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00938
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,389,038. They jointly filed a motion to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
patent all challenged claims upheld
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
· IPR2024-01006
The PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR2024‑01006, finding that none of the challenged claims of the ‘909 lithium‑ion battery patent are unpatentable. LG Energy Solution’s obviousness arguments over multiple prior‑art combinations were rejected.
patent terminated or settled
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00950
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,080,472, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
patent
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00934
ParkerVision requests Director Review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found Texas Instruments' claims obvious based on expert simulations. The owner argues the Board abused discretion by relying on unreliable simulations and allowing a post‑institution do‑over, seeking vacatur and termination of the IPR.
patent terminated or settled
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00950
Dyson and Omachron settled all disputes over four patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes reviews without a final written decision.
patent
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
· IPR2024-00937
Duration Media petitions the PTAB Director to review a Board decision that upheld claims of a web‑ad tracking patent. The petitioner asserts the Board ignored prior art and admissions that render the claims obvious. It seeks reversal or remand of the decision.
patent denied
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
· IPR2024-01048
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01048 concerning patent 10,547,648. The denial leaves the institution decision in place.
patent denied
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00934
RPX's petition to invalidate ParkerVision's down-conversion patent was denied by the PTAB, which found no reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
patent terminated or settled
FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.
· IPR2024-00933
FormFactor and Technoprobe settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,035,885 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
patent terminated or settled
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
· IPR2024-01003
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya entered a joint settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate eight inter partes review proceedings without a final written decision.
patent terminated or settled
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
· IPR2024-01003
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,710,473 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
patent
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
· IPR2024-01105
Procter & Gamble has requested a Director Review of the IPR against Dr. Squatch, limiting the petitioner’s response to 15 pages and prohibiting new evidence.
patent denied
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2024-00934
Texas Instruments successfully defended its 7,496,342 patent against ParkerVision’s Director Review request, which sought to overturn the PTAB’s institution and obviousness findings. The Board affirmed that claims 18‑21 are unpatentable as obvious over DeMaw and Macnally, and the review request was denied.
patent
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01095
Samsung Display has been given five business days to respond to Pictiva's Director Review request in IPR2024-01095, with a strict 15‑page limit and no new evidence allowed.
patent terminated or settled
FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.
· IPR2024-00933
FormFactor and Technoprobe have settled their IPR dispute over a probe‑card patent. They jointly request that the settlement agreement be treated as confidential business information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00925
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 8,451,339. The settlement resolves all disputes and the agreement is kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00923
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,873,685, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to end the review as no merits decision has been rendered.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01051
Samsung and Headwater have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,639,811 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
patent
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
· IPR2024-01001
Solventum Corp. filed an unopposed motion to keep its settlement with M.E.A.C. Engineering confidential under federal rules, also seeking termination of the IPR.
patent terminated or settled
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00925
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have reached a settlement, jointly requesting termination of the IPR concerning patent 8,451,339. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under statutory authority.
patent terminated or settled
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
· IPR2024-01002
Solventum Corp. filed an IPR against M.E.A.C. Engineering’s patent 8,858,534. The parties settled before the Board could institute a trial, leading to a termination order.
patent terminated or settled
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00921
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,077,991 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement documents be kept confidential.
patent
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-00997
AT&T and other telecom operators seek Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against ASUS’s 5G QoS patent, alleging the panel ignored prior‑art disclosures and expert testimony.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00920
Amazon has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Nokia's patent covering video encoding techniques. The petitioner asserts the Board misinterpreted claim language and ignored obviousness evidence from the Koga reference.
