US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 307 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Apr 22, 2024
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
· IPR2024-00829
Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 22, 2024
Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
· IPR2024-00765
Garmin and patent owner Slyde Analytics settled their dispute in IPR2024-00006, resulting in Garmin's termination from the proceeding. The Board treated the settlement agreement as business confidential information.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 22, 2024
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
· IPR2024-00833
The IPR was terminated after the parties settled following institution.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 22, 2024
Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
· IPR2024-00765
Samsung and Slyde Analytics settled their IPR dispute over a wearable‑technology patent, leading the Board to terminate Samsung from the proceeding and grant confidentiality to the settlement agreement.
patent null · Apr 22, 2024
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
· IPR2024-00833
Zepp Health Corporation initiated an IPR against Slyde Analytics, LLC regarding a smartwatch patent, asserting obviousness under 103. The petitioner relies on combining multiple prior art references to demonstrate that the claimed features were predictable applications of routine technology in wearable displays.
patent null · Apr 22, 2024
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
· IPR2024-00829
Applied Concepts Inc. filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,194,039, asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed traffic speed detection features are predictable combinations of existing prior art references.
patent null · Apr 22, 2024
Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
· IPR2024-00765
Garmin Ltd. challenges the validity of Clyde Analytics' '033 Patent in an IPR proceeding, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petition details multiple grounds combining Mooring and Satoshi with additional references like Lee, Louch, and Tam to demonstrate unpatentability.
patent instituted · Apr 22, 2024
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
· IPR2024-00829
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 15 claims in a traffic radar system patent (11,194,039) after finding the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness over prior art references like Aker and Thomas.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 19, 2024
HL Klemove Corporation v.Foras Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-00813
HL Klemove and Foras Technologies have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 7,502,958, citing settlement and the lack of any merits decision. The Board is expected to grant the motion under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
patent instituted · Apr 19, 2024
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-00783
Apple was granted a PTAB order instituting inter partes review of all 20 claims of the ‘289 patent and joining the ongoing Google IPR. The Board found the petition identical to the earlier Google filing and approved joinder without adding new grounds.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 19, 2024
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-00782
Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,646,042 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding on grounds of settlement and judicial economy.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 19, 2024
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-00784
Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 19, 2024
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-00783
Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,679,289 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion stresses settlement, early‑stage status, and judicial economy.
patent instituted · Apr 19, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00777
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00777, leaving the institution of Maxell's patent 11,017,815 B2 in place.
patent · Apr 19, 2024
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-00782
Google and Proxense filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR. The parties rely on 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related CFR rules to limit public disclosure.
patent · Apr 19, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00777
Maxell seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute Samsung’s IPR against U.S. Patent 11,017,815, alleging abuse of discretion on public‑accessibility findings, prior‑art status, and burden‑shifting. The petition also raises policy concerns over multiple petitions on the same patent.
patent · Apr 19, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00777
Maxell filed a preliminary response urging denial of Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,017,815, arguing lack of merit, prior‑art duplication, and discretionary factors favoring denial.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 19, 2024
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-00784
Google and Proxense filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on Patent 10,073,960. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential under §317(b).
patent · Apr 19, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00777
Maxell seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung, arguing the Board ignored Fintiv factors and misapplied §314(a) after a guidance memo was rescinded. The petition highlights parallel district‑court litigation and requests denial of institution.
patent · Apr 19, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00735
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior‑art references are duplicate or cumulative and discretionary factors favor denial, given parallel district‑court litigation.
patent · Apr 19, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00717
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the prior art does not teach the dual‑camera standby features and that discretionary factors favor denial.
patent · Apr 19, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2024-00735
Samsung opposes Maxell’s request to overturn the PTAB’s final written decision, asserting no inconsistency in expert testimony and accusing Maxell of strategic gamesmanship. The Board’s earlier findings remain unchallenged.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 19, 2024
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-00727
ZF Friedrichshafen, its affiliates, and Nissan settled with Foras Technologies, leading to a joint motion to terminate the IPR over patent 7,502,958. The Board granted the termination and sealed the settlement agreement as business‑confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 19, 2024
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-00784
Google and Proxense settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR over Proxense’s Bluetooth proximity patent.
