US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 244 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent instituted · Aug 11, 2024
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
· IPR2025-00156
Imperative Care challenges Inari Medical's hemostasis valve patents under grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board construed the key term 'filament' to require flexibility, which influenced its initial assessment of the claims. Institution was granted, setting the stage for a full trial on infringement and validity.
patent instituted · Aug 11, 2024
Tesla, Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00152
Tesla successfully challenged Charge Fusion Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB institution decision. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine prior art references, rendering numerous independent and dependent claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This outcome significantly weakens the asserted patent portfolio for Charge Fusion.
patent instituted · Aug 11, 2024
Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00153
Tesla Inc.'s petition against Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC was instituted by the PTAB, finding a reasonable likelihood that the patent claims are unpatentable as obvious. The Board focused on how prior art references could combine to render independent claims obvious, specifically regarding charging system features.
patent denied · Aug 11, 2024
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
· IPR2025-00088
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment regarding network performance patents. The Board cited the proximity of a parallel district court trial date to the statutory deadline as a key factor favoring denial.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 11, 2024
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
· IPR2025-00156
The Board found that the claims were obvious over prior art references by combining known features to achieve a predictable result. Despite initial disputes over claim construction, the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient motivation for combining specific prior art elements.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 10, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-00001
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent succeeded; all 24 claims were found obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and thus unpatentable.
patent instituted · Aug 10, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-00001
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’218 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
patent denied · Aug 10, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00021
Google and Samsung petitioned for rehearing of a USPTO Director Review decision across several IPRs. The Board denied the rehearing requests, leaving the prior institution decisions in place.
patent · Aug 10, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00021
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to overturn a Director’s discretionary denial that left Mullen Industries’ 19‑claim patent alive. The petition argues misapplication of Fintiv factors, failure to honor a Sotera stipulation, and retroactive rescission of guidance.
patent denied · Aug 10, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00021
Google and Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ patent was denied. The Patent Owner’s response emphasized the Director’s discretionary authority, the parallel district‑court trial, and weak petition merits.
patent · Aug 10, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00021
Google and Samsung petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ wireless‑device patent. Mullen has filed a Director Review request arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and should deny institution under §314(a). The outcome of the review is pending.
patent · Aug 10, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-00001
Netlist seeks Director review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 11,386,024 patent, arguing Samsung’s record is overly voluminous and its six grounds lack particularity. The petition urges denial of institution and referral to district court.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 10, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-00001
The PTAB held that Samsung Electronics' IPR against Netlist’s 8,489,837 B1 patent succeeded, finding claims 1‑3,5,6 unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references LeClerg, Lee, and Kim. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and rejected the patent owner’s arguments.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 10, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-00001
The PTAB found all 29 claims of Netlist's ’623 memory module patent unpatentable, deeming them obvious over a combination of prior art references including Hazelzet, Buchmann, and Talbot. Samsung, as petitioner, secured a complete cancellation of the patent claims.
patent instituted · Aug 10, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00021
Google and Samsung petitioned to keep an IPR against Mullen Industries’ 19‑claim patent alive. The Board’s analysis of Fintiv factors supports institution, and the petition argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Aug 10, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00021
Mullen Industries requested Director Review of multiple IPRs against Google. The PTAB limited Google’s reply to five pages and barred new evidence, giving a five‑business‑day deadline.
patent instituted · Aug 10, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-00001
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 24 claims. The Board declined to exercise discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
patent · Aug 10, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-00001
Samsung files an authorized response opposing Netlist’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision on U.S. Patent 11,386,024, arguing procedural waivers and public accessibility of the JEDEC proposal.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 10, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-00001
Samsung successfully challenged Netlist’s 9,858,218 patent covering memory‑module handshaking. The PTAB found all 22 claims obvious over prior‑art combinations of Hazelzet and Buchmann. The decision also rejected the parties’ proposed claim constructions.
patent denied · Aug 10, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-00001
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in Netlist’s memory‑module patent case, leaving the institution in place.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 10, 2024
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01374
Fujifilm and Optimum Imaging Technologies have reached a settlement-in-principle in their IPR dispute, requesting a 60‑day stay to finalize dismissal. The parties will file a stipulation of dismissal within two months.
patent · Aug 10, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-00001
The PTAB sent an email notifying Samsung and Netlist of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00001 and IPR2025-00002, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages and prohibiting new evidence. The director will decide whether to grant the review.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 10, 2024
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01374
The petitioners and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled all disputes related to U.S. Patent 10,877,266. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board has not yet decided the merits, making termination appropriate.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 10, 2024
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01374
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have agreed to settle their patent dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266, planning to dismiss the case after a 45‑day stay.
