US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 43 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent terminated or settled · Aug 31, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01499
BOE Technology and Samsung Display have settled all disputes in IPR2025-01499 concerning U.S. Patent 9,299,730. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 317, citing that the Board has not decided the merits and that settlement serves public policy interests.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 31, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01476
BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display have settled all disputes in IPR2025-01476 concerning patent 10,541,279 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to end the IPR before any merits are decided.
patent · Aug 31, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01479
BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,574,991 covering OLED pixel circuits and have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that termination serves public policy and saves resources.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 31, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01477
BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,500,496 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent · Aug 31, 2025
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
· IPR2025-01362
Ciena Corporation seeks Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPR on patent 8,782,282, alleging violations of statutory and procedural requirements.
patent · Aug 31, 2025
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
· IPR2025-01362
Ciena’s request for Director Review of a denied inter‑partes review is opposed by K.Mizra, which argues that the Director’s decision is discretionary and non‑reviewable under 35 U.S.C. § 314. The response cites Supreme Court precedent to show the petition lacks merit.
patent · Aug 31, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01498
Court decision.
patent denied · Aug 31, 2025
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
· IPR2025-01362
The USPTO Director denied Ciena's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01362, leaving the denial of institution in place. No substantive patentability issues were addressed.
patent · Aug 31, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01479
BOE has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's OLED pixel‑circuit patent (US 11,574,991). The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering TFT layouts, capacitor structures, and pixel designs. Detailed claim‑by‑claim analyses are provided to support unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Aug 31, 2025
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
· IPR2025-01362
Ciena Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate 22 claims of K. Mizra’s U.S. Patent 8,782,282, asserting they are obvious over prior‑art network‑management systems. The petition relies on Secer and Dinker as the combined teaching.
patent · Aug 31, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01499
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's 9,299,730 OLED display patent. The petition argues that all 19 claims are obvious over six prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
patent · Aug 31, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01498
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Samsung Display's OLED‑related patent (US 10,720,483), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution under §325(d) or Fintiv.
patent · Aug 31, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01476
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Samsung Display’s 10,541,279 B2 OLED touch‑screen patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on 35 U.S.C. §103 and lists eight ground combinations covering the entire claim set.
patent · Aug 31, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01477
BOE Technology Group petitions to invalidate Samsung Display’s 11,500,496 OLED touchscreen patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious combinations of prior‑art OLED and touch‑sensor technologies.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 30, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01478
BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,574,990, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 30, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01478
BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,574,990 covering OLED pixel circuits and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent · Aug 30, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01478
BOE Technology filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display’s OLED display patent (US 11,574,990). The petition asserts that all 30 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
patent · Aug 30, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2025-01413
BOE Technology Group has filed a petition to invalidate all twelve claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,512, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art LCD driver references. Six obviousness grounds are presented, each tying specific claim groups to the teachings of Saito, Her, Taguchi, and Kim.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 29, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-01431
The PTAB’s Final Written Decision invalidated all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’054 Flash‑DRAM hybrid memory module patent after Samsung and Micron proved the claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi, and Hajeck references.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 29, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-01431
Samsung and its affiliates successfully challenged all 15 claims of Netlist’s ’417 memory‑module patent in an IPR, finding them obvious over Perego and JEDEC DDR2 standards. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and dismissed the patent owner’s defenses.
patent denied · Aug 29, 2025
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
· IPR2025-01488
Apple’s request to overturn the USPTO’s discretionary denial of an IPR against HBCU Messaging’s messaging patent was rejected. The Board affirmed the denial, emphasizing procedural rules and claim‑construction inconsistencies.
patent denied · Aug 29, 2025
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
· IPR2025-01486
Apple’s request for Director review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board affirmed the denial, citing inconsistent claim constructions between the district court and the IPR, in line with Revvo precedent.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 29, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-01431
The PTAB held that all eight challenged claims of Netlist’s 8,516,185 B2 memory‑module patent are unpatentable. Samsung, as petitioner, successfully demonstrated obviousness over a combination of Halbert and Amidi references.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 29, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01494
BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,081,503 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public‑policy benefits of settlement.
