US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 36 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC
· IPR2025-01215
Apple and Vampire Labs filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business‑confidential and to terminate the IPR.
patent terminated or settled
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01108
Nokia and Element TV have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review before it was instituted.
patent
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01193
A statistical study of 2021 IPR final written decisions shows that patents deemed unpatentable typically have extensive prior‑art citations and often rely on new prior art and expert testimony introduced during the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01267
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,126,025 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR proceeding.
patent terminated or settled
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01103
Apple and Advanced Coding Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,230,101 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent terminated or settled
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
· IPR2025-01102
Google and Pointwise Ventures settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01185
MWE Investments, Harbor Freight Tools, and Generac have filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement for Patent 10,221,780 confidential and separate from the patent file. The request cites statutory confidentiality provisions and seeks limited disclosure only upon proper request.
patent terminated or settled
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
· IPR2025-01190
Samsung and Hannibal IP entered a settlement, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR challenging patent 11,641,661. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
· IPR2025-01190
Hannibal IP seeks a discretionary denial of Samsung’s IPR on its 5G beam‑management patent, arguing the prior‑art challenge is weak, Samsung had prior knowledge, and the district‑court trial will precede any PTAB decision.
patent denied
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01096
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution was rejected. The Board affirmed that the “settled expectations” standard is a lawful discretionary factor and that Amazon’s APA and due‑process arguments fail.
patent denied
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01096
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the denial to institute three IPRs against SoundClear patents, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
· IPR2025-01189
Hannibal IP seeks to block Samsung’s IPR over its 5G power‑saving patent, arguing the challenge is weak, relies on expert testimony, and that Samsung had prior notice of the patent. The request cites timing of a parallel trial and unlikely stay to argue for discretionary denial of institution.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01096
Amazon seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule to block its IPR against SoundClear’s audio‑processing patent. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, conflicts with precedent, and violates the APA and due‑process rights.
patent
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
· IPR2025-01087
Orca Security and Wiz have jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, citing statutory protections. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the IPR file and limit disclosure to the parties and the Board.
patent
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
· IPR2025-01085
Orca Security and Wiz have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The parties argue that public disclosure would harm their business interests.
patent terminated or settled
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01183
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies entered a settlement that led to the termination of three IPRs before any trial was instituted. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
patent terminated or settled
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
· IPR2025-01087
Orca Security and Wiz settled their inter partes review dispute and filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding. The PTAB is expected to grant termination as no final written decision has been issued.
patent terminated or settled
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
· IPR2025-01085
Orca Security and Wiz have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,936,693. The parties jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, and the Board is asked to grant the termination.
patent terminated or settled
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01081
iRhythm Technologies withdrew its IPR challenge to Welch Allyn's cardiac monitoring patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00989
The PTAB held that Imperative Care’s challenge to Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent succeeded, finding all nine claims unpatentable under §§ 102 and 103 based on prior‑art references Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
patent instituted
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01025
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. The review will cover claims 1‑9 and is based on anticipation and obviousness grounds over Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
patent
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01183
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on claims 1‑8 under §§102 and 103.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
· IPR2025-01071
Samsung’s petition to deny the patent owner’s request for Director Review was successful. The Board upheld the institution and found no error in the earlier decision, keeping the IPR proceeding alive.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01183
Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies, leading the PTAB to find all eight claims of the challenged patent unpatentable. The Board held that the prior‑art references Mgrdechian and secondary references anticipate or render obvious each claim limitation.
