US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 183 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent terminated or settled · Jun 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00115
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,307,369. They jointly request the settlement be kept confidential and move to terminate the IPR.
patent instituted · Jun 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00115
US Conec Ltd. successfully secured institution of IPR against Senko Advanced Components, Inc.'s optical connector patent (11307369), challenging 22 claims based on obviousness and anticipation.
patent · Jun 1, 2024
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00115
US Conec Ltd. challenges the validity of Senko Advanced Components' '369 patent, arguing that various claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references (Scherer, Lee, Gniadek). The petition asserts both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), specifically targeting connector housing arrangements in optical fiber technology.
patent terminated or settled · May 31, 2024
TransCore, LP et al. v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
· IPR2024-00982
TransCore and Hand Held Products settled their IPR dispute over a handheld scanner patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings before trial, treating the settlement as confidential.
patent · May 31, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00951
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless jointly request that their 5G NR settlement be kept confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
patent terminated or settled · May 31, 2024
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00987
IKEA Supply and Everlight Electronics settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,742, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted. The settlement agreement is to be kept confidential per regulatory provisions.
patent · May 31, 2024
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00987
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly filed a motion to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) in IPR2024-00987.
patent terminated or settled · May 31, 2024
TransCore, LP et al. v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
· IPR2024-00982
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00982 before the Board issued an institution decision.
patent · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00907
Maxell seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s Bluetooth streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards and ignored key Fintiv factors.
patent terminated or settled · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
· IPR2024-00974
Samsung and Redstone Logics settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,253,925. The parties jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR and requested the settlement be kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · May 31, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00951
Ericsson and Nokia settled with Active Wireless Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The settlement agreements were also designated as business‑confidential information.
patent terminated or settled · May 31, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00951
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless Technologies have settled their 5G NR patent dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy supports termination.
patent · May 31, 2024
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.
patent terminated or settled · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
· IPR2024-00974
Samsung Electronics and Redstone Logics settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,253,925 before a trial was instituted. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
patent · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· PGR2024-00030
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate Oura’s wearable‑ring patent (US 11,868,178) on grounds of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and §112 indefiniteness.
patent · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· PGR2024-00031
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution.
patent · May 31, 2024
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
· IPR2024-00989
Juniper Networks filed a Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 8,014,394 held by Portsmouth Network Corporation. The petition asserts that several claims related to multicast routing and switch fabric are obvious over prior art references Blease, Weyman, Hu, Deng, and Rao under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This proceeding addresses the core validity of networking technology patents.
patent · May 31, 2024
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-00988
IKEA Supply AG has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,554,126 held by Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., asserting that the LED claims are unpatentable. The petition relies heavily on grounds of anticipation and obviousness using multiple prior art references. This challenge targets numerous structural features within light emitting diode technology.
patent null · May 31, 2024
SHENZHEN ROOT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
· IPR2024-00953
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,413,380 held by Chiaro Technology Ltd. The challenge centers on obviousness (Section 103), arguing that the claimed features of the breast pump are combinations of existing prior art references like Chang, Weber, and Guthrie.
patent null · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· IPR2024-00930
Samsung Electronics has filed a Petition challenging all 22 claims of Oura Health's '147 Patent, alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Yuen, Schröder, and Mestas.
patent null · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· IPR2024-00929
Samsung Electronics filed a petition challenging Oura Health Oy's U.S. Patent No. 10,893,833, asserting that all twelve claims are obvious over prior art references Yuen and Schröder. The petitioner grounds its challenge entirely on Section 103 (obviousness), arguing various combinations of the cited patents render the claims invalid. The petition also addresses discretionary denial issues under §314(a).
patent · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· IPR2024-00928
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Oura Health Oy's patent for a wearable computing device, arguing that the invention is unpatentable over existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that combining references such as Schröder and Yuen renders the claimed finger ring obvious, covering both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
patent denied · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· PGR2024-00031
The PTAB denied Samsung's Post-Grant Review petition against Ouraing because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all 16 challenged claims.
patent instituted · May 31, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
· PGR2024-00030
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to challenge Oura Health's patent (11868178) in a PGR proceeding, leading the PTAB to institute the case. The Board found Petitioner's arguments regarding prior art disclosures for battery and PCB placement sufficient to proceed to trial.
