US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 216 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent terminated or settled · Sep 20, 2024
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
· IPR2024-01468
Headwater Partners and major carriers have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,094,868 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
patent denied · Sep 20, 2024
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-01460
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' request for rehearing of its institution denial, finding the petition did not overcome the Fintiv factors, particularly the tight trial schedule. Institution of the IPR remains denied.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 20, 2024
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
· IPR2024-01444
Aktana and Veeva Systems settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-01443 and IPR2024-01444 before institution. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
patent · Sep 20, 2024
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
· IPR2024-01433
Cyandia files a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on its notification‑method patent, asserting the Board’s claim construction is inconsistent with the district court and the patent’s plain language.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Sep 20, 2024
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
· IPR2024-01433
SAP America successfully defended its IPR against Cyandia’s 8,751,948 patent, resulting in a Final Written Decision that found all 16 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board relied on a plain‑meaning construction of the term “determining a notification method.”
patent · Sep 20, 2024
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
· IPR2024-01432
Cyandia filed an authorized response opposing SAP’s Director Review Request, asserting that the PTAB’s institution decision was proper and that SAP’s arguments were waived. The patent owner relies on Sotera, Motorola, and Dell precedents and highlights Fintiv factors favoring denial.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 20, 2024
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
· IPR2024-01444
Aktana and Veeva have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,391,937 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on institution or merits, and the parties seek to keep the settlement confidential.
patent · Sep 20, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01405
Harbor Island Dynamic seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found Samsung's challenged claims unpatentable. The patent owner alleges legal error in claim construction and factual error regarding the feasibility of the Gambino process. The request challenges the Board’s anticipation and obviousness findings.
patent · Sep 20, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01405
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request in IPR2024-01405, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages, no new evidence, and a five‑business‑day deadline.
patent · Sep 20, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01405
Samsung has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on Harbor Island Dynamic’s semiconductor anchor‑via patent. The owner argues the Board misapplied Fintiv discretionary factors, especially the proximity of a parallel district‑court trial.
patent · Sep 20, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01403
Harbor Island Dynamic seeks Director Review of IPR2024‑01403, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages with no new evidence allowed.
patent · Sep 20, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01403
Samsung Electronics seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision for a deep‑trench isolation patent, arguing the Board mis‑applied Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors. The patent owner contends the panel gave insufficient weight to the upcoming district‑court trial date and related investment.
patent · Sep 20, 2024
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
· IPR2024-01468
Samsung and Headwater have filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, seeking Board approval to seal the document.
patent · Sep 20, 2024
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
· IPR2024-01468
Samsung and Headwater have entered a settlement that resolves their disputes over U.S. Patent No. 9,094,868. They jointly move to terminate the inter partes review as to Samsung and request confidentiality for the settlement.
patent · Sep 20, 2024
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-01463
SK Nexilis seeks a Director Review to keep its copper‑electroplating patent alive after the PTAB instituted an IPR. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and over‑relied on unsupported expert testimony.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 20, 2024
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
· IPR2024-01443
Aktana and Veeva settled their dispute over patents 9,055,023 and 9,391,937, leading the PTAB to terminate both inter partes review proceedings before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered confidential and kept separate from the patent files.
patent · Sep 20, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01403
Court decision.
patent · Sep 20, 2024
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
· IPR2024-01433
SAP America challenges Cyandia’s notification‑method patent, arguing the Board correctly found no written description support for the dynamic alert step and that the owner’s 2008 provisional evidence is irrelevant. SAP seeks a Director denial of the owner’s review request.
patent instituted · Sep 20, 2024
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
· IPR2024-01433
The USPTO denied SAP America's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01433, leaving Cyandia's patent 8,751,948 B2 instituted.
patent · Sep 20, 2024
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
· IPR2024-01433
Cyandia challenges SAP’s institution of an IPR on its notification‑alert patent, asserting the Board ignored key prior‑art and misapplied written‑description analysis. The patent owner seeks director review to vacate the decision.
patent · Sep 20, 2024
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
· IPR2024-01432
SAP America seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cyandia’s WebSphere‑related patent, arguing the Board’s reliance on speculative overlap and misapplication of Sotera precedent. The petition urges the Director to overturn the denial and institute review.
patent · Sep 20, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01405
Samsung challenges a Director Review request by Harbor Island Dynamic over U.S. Patent 9,245,826. The response argues that the Board’s claim construction and obviousness findings were correct and that no Director Review grounds exist.
patent denied · Sep 20, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01405
Samsung's request for Director Review of PTAB institution decisions in four IPRs, including the 9,245,826 patent, was denied. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.
patent · Sep 20, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01405
Court decision.
