US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 158 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent terminated or settled · Aug 10, 2024
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01374
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in a Texas district court case, planning to dismiss the lawsuit after a 45‑day stay. The agreement ends the dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266.
patent · Aug 10, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-00001
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 20 claims of Netlist’s 11,386,024 patent covering DDR3 memory‑module training. The petition relies on prior art combinations of Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang and Kim, and cites earlier PTAB decisions that cancelled similar claims. It requests that the Board institute a trial.
patent · Aug 10, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00021
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 19 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
patent · Aug 10, 2024
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01374
FUJIFILM and a coalition of camera makers have filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’266 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple pre‑2005 camera‑technology patents. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent denied · Aug 10, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00021
The Director denied institution of IPR for Mullen Industries against Google LLC et al., vacating the prior decision. The denial was based on a holistic Fintiv analysis where procedural factors outweighed the merits.
patent instituted · Aug 10, 2024
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01374
The PTAB instituted the IPR on all 30 challenged claims for FUJIFILM Corporation et al. against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over Sarbadhikari and Katagiri. The decision was based on Petitioner's diligent filing and favorable factors regarding parallel district court litigation despite Patent Owner arguments to the contrary.
patent null · Aug 8, 2024
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-01203
Hanwha Solutions Corporation petitioned the PTAB challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell patents based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that combining specific prior art references, such as Froitzheim and Gan, renders the claimed photovoltaic structures predictable and obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art. This petition addresses ongoing district court litigation between the parties.
patent null · Aug 8, 2024
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01198
Hanwha Solutions Corporation has filed a petition challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, such as FSF doping and gettering, are conventional and render the invention predictable when combined with existing prior art.
patent instituted · Aug 8, 2024
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-01199
Hanwha Solutions Corporation successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., leading to trial on all 20 challenged claims. The Board found that Petitioner met the threshold for obviousness by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of combining prior art references (Froitzheim, Gan, Smith, Li).
patent Final Written Decision · Aug 8, 2024
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-01203
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1-11 are unpatentable over combinations of prior art references (Froitzheim, Gan, Sheats). Claim 12 was not shown to be unpatentable. The Board found the Petitioner met its burden regarding reasonable expectation of success for several claims.
patent Final Written Decision · Aug 8, 2024
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-01199
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that various combinations of prior art—including Froitzheim, Gan, Smith, and Li—would render the Maxeon patent obvious to a person skilled in the art.
patent final · Aug 8, 2024
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. et al.
· IPR2024-01198
The PTAB issued a final written decision denying Petitioner's challenge to claims 10-20 of Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent. The Board construed the key term 'metal impurities' as 'unintentional foreign metals,' rejecting arguments that intentional dopants qualified. Ultimately, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
patent instituted · Aug 7, 2024
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
· IPR2024-01157
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently persuasive.
patent instituted · Aug 7, 2024
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 instituted · Aug 7, 2024
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
· IPR2024-01157
Imperative Care has successfully instituted an IPR against Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent, asserting unpatentability under §§102 and 103 based on Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success and ordered review of all challenged claims.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 7, 2024
Hecht, Thomas v.Carver Edison, Inc.
· IPR2024-01135
The petitioner and Carver Edison, Inc. settled their inter partes review before trial, resulting in a joint motion to dismiss and termination of the proceeding. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
patent · Aug 7, 2024
Hecht, Thomas v.Carver Edison, Inc.
· IPR2024-01135
Thomas Hecht filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,833. The petition asserts that the patent is obvious over prior art (Hecht's own disclosure and Sullivan) when combined with known computer technology like volatility modules and containerization.
patent instituted · Aug 7, 2024
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
· IPR2024-01157
Imperative Care, Inc. successfully challenged nine claims of INARI MEDICAL's hemostasis valve patent (11697011) at the PTAB. The Board found sufficient evidence for Petitioner’s anticipation challenge against Claim 1 after adopting a broad interpretation of the term 'filament.'
patent Final Written Decision · Aug 7, 2024
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
· IPR2024-01157
The Board found that the claims were unpatentable under obviousness (Grounds 3 and 4), specifically over a combination of Schaffer's valve with Hartley's string or Eller's wire. The decision hinged on finding that a POSA would have had reason to make this substitution, leading to predictable results in hemostatic device design.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 5, 2024
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00898
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,981,350 B1, prompting the PTAB to terminate the IPR before it was instituted.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 5, 2024
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00898
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR No. 2024‑00898, seeking confidential treatment of their settlement agreement under 35 U.S.C. §317. The parties argue the settlement resolves all issues concerning patent 10,981,350.
patent · Aug 5, 2024
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 · Aug 5, 2024
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 terminated or settled · Aug 5, 2024
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2024-00898
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00898 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’350 patent covering wood‑plastic composite technology.
