US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 63 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent terminated or settled
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
· IPR2025-00714
Databricks and ByteWeavr reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPRs challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,839,733. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00644
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to rehear a decision that denied institution of an IPR over iCashe's mobile‑payment patent. The petition alleges procedural violations, including the improper rescission of the Vidal Memo and failure to consider Samsung's Sotera stipulation.
patent
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00713
Milestone Entertainment filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition on the 11,501,607 gaming patent. The owner contends the cited prior art does not disclose key claim elements and that one reference is not prior art. The Board is asked to reject institution.
patent
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00712
Milestone Entertainment’s sur‑reply rebuts Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, asserting that Walker’s provisional does not confer prior‑art status, that Milestone’s conception and diligence are well‑documented, and that Kelly fails to disclose key claim limitations.
patent denied
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00643
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the one covering iCashe's mobile‑payment patent 9,202,156.
patent denied
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00643
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent is opposed by iCashe, which argues the Director correctly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung has no right to institution.
patent terminated or settled
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00753
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings. The joint motion and stipulation with prejudice ended the challenge to patent 10,171,433.
patent denied
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00642
The Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of the PTAB's decisions not to institute several IPRs against iCashe's patents. The order affirms the PTAB's original institution denials.
patent terminated or settled
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00751
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their patent dispute, leading to the termination of three IPRs before any trial was instituted.
patent denied
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00712
Milestone Entertainment’s preliminary response argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails to show that the cited references disclose the patented dynamic game‑parameter system or provide a motivation to combine them, leading to a request for denial of institution.
patent denied
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00733
The PTAB denied Tessell's petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nutanix patents, leaving the institution denials intact.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00643
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The petition argues that recent USPTO policy changes were made without required rulemaking and ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation, violating the APA and due‑process rights.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00642
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to rehear a discretionary denial of institution in IPR2025-00642, arguing that recent USPTO guidance changes violated the APA and due‑process rights. The petition contends the Board ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and misapplied “settled expectations.”
patent denied
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00711
Milestone Entertainment’s preliminary response argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art does not disclose the required game‑processor features and one reference is not prior art. The Board is urged to deny institution.
patent denied
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00710
Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition targeting Milestone Entertainment’s virtual‑currency gaming patent was rejected. The patent owner showed the prior art fails to disclose key claim elements and that no motivation to combine existed.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00641
Samsung petitions the PTAB Director to rehear a discretionary denial of institution for iCashe's NFC payment patent, arguing that USPTO guidance changes violated the APA and due process, and that the Board ignored Samsung's Sotera stipulation.
patent denied
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00640
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent 9,483,722.
patent
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00709
Milestone Entertainment’s sur‑reply argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails to show that claim 9 is anticipated or obvious, emphasizing that the cited Schneier reference does not disclose a time‑varying multiplier for virtual currency.
patent denied
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-00683
The PTAB denied the petitioners’ requests for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs concerning patents 8,198,686 and 8,907,425.
patent denied
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
· IPR2025-00720
The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00720 and related cases, leaving the original denial in place.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00640
Samsung seeks Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPRs against iCashe’s patent. iCashe argues the Director acted properly under established memos and statutes, and that Samsung’s due‑process claims fail. The patent owner requests denial of the review.
patent denied
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00640
Samsung filed a Director Review petition after the USPTO denied institution of seven IPRs challenging iCashe’s patent. The petition also references concurrent P‑TACTS filings.
patent denied
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00639
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs against iCashe, leaving the institution denials in place.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00639
Samsung filed a Director Review request to overturn the USPTO’s denial of institution for several IPRs challenging iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent (US 9,122,965). The petition argues the Board erred and seeks to have the IPRs instituted.
