US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 205 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent denied · Apr 10, 2024
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-00005
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.'s request for rehearing was denied by the PTAB, upholding the initial decision to deny institution of IPR against SK nexilis's copper foil patent.
patent final · Apr 10, 2024
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00016
The PTAB issued a final written decision rejecting all grounds of unpatentability asserted by the Petitioner regarding NGS target enrichment claims. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow definition of 'enrichment,' finding that the prior art failed to teach the claimed proportional increase in target fragments.
patent final · Apr 10, 2024
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00015
The PTAB upheld the patent against IPR challenges related to NGS target enrichment. The Board clarified that 'enrichment' requires an increased proportion of the sequence relative to others, not just a raw increase in fragment count. Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof on unpatentability.
patent Final Written Decision · Apr 10, 2024
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00007
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 11 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over combinations of prior art, specifically involving Chang and Jin for isolation regions in solar cells.
patent · Apr 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01369
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial that applied retroactively after the Vidal memo was rescinded. The petition argues due‑process violations and arbitrary weighting of Fintiv factors. Samsung seeks to submit a Sotera stipulation and have the institution decision vacated.
patent denied · Apr 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01367
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four related IPRs, including IPR2024‑01367 covering Secure Wi‑Fi’s patent. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes in place.
patent · Apr 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01366
Samsung Electronics filed Director Review requests for four IPRs challenging Secure Wi‑Fi’s U.S. Patent No. 9,717,005. The PTAB Director instructed Secure Wi‑Fi to submit a brief response within five business days, prohibiting new evidence. The review decision is pending.
patent denied · Apr 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01367
Secure Wi‑Fi LLC defended the PTAB’s denial of institution against Samsung’s request for Director review, arguing the Board’s use of Fintiv factors was proper and the petitioner’s new arguments untimely. The Board’s decision stands.
patent · Apr 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01367
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’384 patent covering fake MAC address techniques. The petition relies on obviousness over Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Yun, Satish and Jalfon. No discretionary denial is requested.
patent · Apr 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01369
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 10‑28 of Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’552 patent. The challenger relies on a combination of Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Orava and Yun (and Kholaif for claims 24‑28) to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Samsung also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted given parallel district‑court litigation.
patent · Apr 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01366
Samsung petitions an IPR to invalidate 17 claims of Secure Wi‑Fi’s 9,717,005 Wi‑Fi connection patent, asserting obviousness over Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Orava and Yun.
patent · Apr 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01368
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’552 patent covering Wi‑Fi connection methods. The petition argues that claims 1‑9 are obvious over Vardi, the IEEE 802.11 standard, Orava and Yun, and opposes any discretionary denial.
patent denied · Apr 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01368
Samsung Electronics' IPR challenge against Secure Wi-Fi LLC was denied by the PTAB, despite arguments regarding prior art and claim scope. The Board based its decision on a holistic application of Fintiv factors, finding that the likelihood of trial before the statutory deadline outweighed other considerations.
patent · Apr 6, 2024
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-00997
AT&T filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against ASUS. The petition contends the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, ignoring prior art and POSITA testimony.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 6, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00985
Ericsson and Nokia jointly moved to terminate an IPR over Active Wireless's 5G PUCCH patent after reaching settlement agreements with the patent owner. The Board was asked to end the proceeding because the merits had not yet been decided and public policy favors settlement.
patent · Apr 6, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00976
BOE Technology Group seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision, arguing the Board misapplied obviousness law on two grounds involving Kurashina/Sato and Murade‑109/Murade‑125 references. The petitioner contends that universal motivations and known techniques provide sufficient motivation to combine the references.
patent · Apr 6, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00986
Ericsson and Nokia, together with patent owner Active Wireless Technologies, filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements kept confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate the materials from the public PTAB file.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 6, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00985
Ericsson and Nokia settled with Active Wireless Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The settlement agreements were also deemed business‑confidential.
patent denied · Apr 6, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00976
The USPTO denied BOE Technology’s request for a Director Review of the institution denial of its challenge to U.S. Patent 7,502,079, keeping the original denial in place.
patent · Apr 6, 2024
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-00997
Petitioners, including AT&T and Verizon, have challenged ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s patent claims regarding 5G QoS flow management. The petition asserts that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining various prior art references. This challenge targets core technical aspects of wireless communication protocols.
patent null · Apr 6, 2024
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2024-00976
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,502,079 regarding Active-Matrix Liquid Crystal Displays (AMLCD). The petitioner asserts that all three claimed elements are obvious over various combinations of prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This filing initiates a formal PTAB proceeding against the patent owner.
patent denied · Apr 6, 2024
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-00997
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by a consortium of wireless carriers against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc., citing unfavorable findings under the Fintiv discretionary denial standard. The Board found that despite some neutral factors, Petitioner's substantial delay and lack of compelling merits weighed against proceeding with the case.
patent instituted · Apr 6, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00986
Ericsson and Nokia successfully petitioned against Active Wireless Technologies' patent (10785764) in a PTAB decision, leading to institution. The Board found a likelihood of prevailing on the Shin obviousness ground over NB-IoT/LTE multicast services claims.
patent instituted · Apr 6, 2024
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-00985
Ericsson and Nokia successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Active Wireless Technologies LLC regarding 5G NR PUCCH design claims. The Board found compelling evidence of unpatentability, despite initial concerns raised by the Patent Owner's arguments.
