US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 138 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Capital One, National Association v.--
· IPR2024-00878
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR 2024-00878 and to keep the settlement with Implicit, LLC confidential under statutory authority. The Board is asked to treat the settlement as business confidential information and end the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00924
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have reached a settlement-in-principle, planning to dismiss the district court case tied to Patent 7,612,805.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00920
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over patent 8,077,991, leading the USPTO to dismiss the Director Review request as moot and return the case to the Board.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
· IPR2024-00835
The PTAB held that all 20 claims of GOMACO’s slipform paver patent are obvious over the CIII operator manual and Rio’s rotary actuator, rendering the claims unpatentable.
patent
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00875
ST Reproductive Technologies requests Director Review of the PTAB’s final decision that invalidated dependent claims 4, 6, and 18‑20 of its livestock‑monitoring patent. The owner alleges the Board misapplied prior‑art references and failed to consider claim‑specific arguments, seeking reversal or vacatur.
patent terminated or settled
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00923
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Sony Corporation have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in the district‑court lawsuit over U.S. Patent 10,873,685. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and will file a stipulation of dismissal.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
· IPR2024-00897
Empire Technology defends the PTAB’s claim construction for patent 8,565,331, asserting that “subsequently received signals” must be decoded after updating the channel estimate and that the Haustein reference does not teach the asserted limitations.
patent
Capital One, National Association v.--
· IPR2024-00878
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00878 after settling with patent owner Implicit, LLC. The parties agree no further litigation will occur over patent 7,774,740.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
· IPR2024-00864
The PTAB held that all 25 claims of Orca Security’s cloud‑security patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references Veselov, Hufsmith, and Hutchins. The decision follows a thorough obviousness analysis and affirms the petitioner’s position.
patent
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00861
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
patent terminated or settled
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00938
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,389,038 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
patent terminated or settled
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00861
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00861 covering DexCom’s glucose‑monitor patent. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties cite statutory authority for termination.
patent
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00918
DISH Technologies challenges the PTAB’s finding of obviousness for its adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied prior art and procedural rules. The patent owner seeks reversal of the final written decision or termination of the IPR.
patent denied
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00918
The PTAB denied the petitioners' requests for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in two IPRs involving DISH Technologies' streaming patent, leaving the original decisions intact.
patent terminated or settled
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-00921
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,077,991 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits.
patent terminated or settled
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
· IPR2024-00856
Google, Samsung, and Microsoft petitioned an IPR on EyesMatch's facial‑recognition patent, but Samsung and EyesMatch have now settled and moved to terminate the proceeding.
patent
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2024-00917
DISH Technologies seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found its adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent obvious. The Owner alleges procedural errors, improper theory shifting, and misinterpretation of the Leaning prior art.
patent terminated or settled
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-00854
Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 10,478,030. The parties filed a joint motion, and the PTAB terminated the proceeding, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
patent terminated or settled
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
· IPR2024-00853
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00853 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties seek to end the proceeding.
patent denied
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00911
The USPTO denied Micron Technology’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in two IPRs concerning patent 10,937,806. The denial leaves the patent owner’s rights intact.
patent terminated or settled
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
· IPR2024-00995
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies have settled their IPR dispute and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
patent
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00911
Micron’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on its 3D memory patent is contested. The Board found no error in rejecting Micron’s obviousness arguments based on Toyama, and the response urges denial of the review request.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00906
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior art was already considered and the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success, invoking discretionary denial factors.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00907
Maxell argues that Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art was already considered, the petition lacks merit, and discretionary factors favor denial given parallel district‑court litigation.
