US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 192 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent denied · Nov 18, 2024
YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00099
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against Micron by Yangtze Memory Technologies because the Petitioner failed to satisfy its statutory duty to identify all Real Parties in Interest (RPIs).
patent denied · Nov 18, 2024
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00098
The PTAB denied IPR petitions filed by Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) against Micron. The denial was based not on patentability, but on YMTC's failure to satisfy its statutory duty to identify all Real Parties in Interest.
patent instituted · Nov 18, 2024
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00098
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against Micron Technology for patent infringement. The Board found that Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, despite arguments regarding foreign state actor status and RPI issues.
patent denied · Nov 15, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00197
The PTAB denied Google’s request to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ OLED display patent, citing overlapping district‑court litigation and weak petition merits. The Director’s discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) was upheld.
patent · Nov 15, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00197
Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB Director denied institution of its IPR against Mullen Industries’ 2021 wireless‑location patent. The petition argues the denial misapplied Fintiv factors, ignored a Sotera stipulation, and relied on a rescinded guidance memo.
patent denied · Nov 15, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00197
The PTAB denied Samsung Display’s petition to review Pictiva’s ‘547 patent, finding no compelling unpatentability arguments and applying pre‑AIA §102(b) to deem the Igarashi reference prior art.
patent · Nov 15, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
· IPR2025-00188
Cisco’s IPR against WSOU’s ’691 patent was instituted, but the patent owner seeks Director Review, alleging the Panel ignored discretionary‑denial briefing and misapplied the Sotera stipulation analysis. The request aims to have the institution decision vacated.
patent · Nov 15, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
· IPR2025-00188
Cisco’s petition to reinstate an IPR against WSOU’s 8,982,691 patent was opposed by the patent owner, who argued the Director correctly denied institution based on efficiency factors and the limited weight of the Sotera stipulation.
patent instituted · Nov 15, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
· IPR2025-00188
Cisco Systems responded to WSOU Investments’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision in IPR2025-00188. The petitioner argues the Board properly considered all relevant factors and exercised discretion, so the review should be denied.
patent · Nov 15, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
· IPR2025-00188
Cisco has filed a petition for rehearing after the Director vacated the institution of its IPR against patent 8,982,691. The company argues the Director overstepped authority by demanding a waiver of district‑court defenses.
patent · Nov 15, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
· IPR2025-00188
Cisco’s request for rehearing of the Director Review decision in IPR2025-00188 was denied, maintaining the denial of institution of the inter partes review against patent 8,982,691.
patent · Nov 15, 2024
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
· IPR2025-00157
ResMed filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its PAP device patent. The petitioner contends the Board misapplied General Plastic, contrary to recent Director guidance. The request emphasizes different prior art and the need for efficient review of related patents.
patent · Nov 15, 2024
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
· IPR2025-00157
ResMed seeks a PTAB waiver of the 30‑day deadline to request Director Review after the Board denied institution of its IPR, citing a conflicting Director decision and the need for consistency across related petitions.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 15, 2024
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2025-00100
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR, accompanied by a confidential settlement agreement. The PTAB granted the termination and ordered the settlement to be kept confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 15, 2024
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
· IPR2025-00091
American Axle and Neapco Components settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00091 covering a drivetrain patent.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 15, 2024
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
· IPR2025-00090
American Axle and Neapco Components entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of two inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 15, 2024
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
· IPR2025-00091
American Axle and Neapco Components jointly moved to terminate two IPRs after reaching a settlement, and the Board granted the termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
patent · Nov 15, 2024
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
· IPR2025-00090
American Axle and Neapco have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file in IPR2025‑00090.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 15, 2024
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
· IPR2025-00090
American Axle and Neapco have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,434,958 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under settlement provisions of the patent law.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 15, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00083
Ericsson, Nokia, AT&T, Verizon, Google, and T‑Mobile jointly request that the Board treat their settlement with Pegasus as confidential and terminate the IPR over the ’463 patent, citing that all disputes have been resolved.
patent · Nov 15, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00083
Ericsson, KT, and Pegasus have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,638,463 and seek to terminate the IPR as to Ericsson. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and emphasizes public‑policy benefits of settlement.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 15, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00083
Ericsson, Nokia, Google and other carriers have moved to partially terminate an IPR over Pegasus’s 5G carrier‑aggregation patent after executing binding term sheets with the patent owner and dismissing related district‑court cases.
patent · Nov 15, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00083
Ericsson, KT and Pegasus have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,638,463 and filed a joint motion to partially terminate the IPR against Ericsson. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties argue that settlement warrants termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
patent · Nov 15, 2024
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
· IPR2025-00157
ResMed’s request to waive the deadline for a Director Review of its IPR petition was met with a detailed opposition from Cleveland Medical Devices, which argues no good cause exists and cites Board precedent. The patent owner urges denial of the waiver, emphasizing procedural rules and lack of new discretionary factors.
