US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 95 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01251
Apple won a PTAB IPR against Omni MedSci, finding 12 of the 23 challenged claims of the 10,517,484 B2 wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable, while the remaining claims survived.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01251
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent resulted in the Board finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
patent · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01250
Apple (as petitioner) secured a Final Written Decision finding claims 1,2,7,15‑23 of Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art. The Board affirmed the petitioner's obviousness arguments while leaving claims 3‑6 and 8‑14 intact.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01250
Apple’s petition succeeded; the PTAB held all challenged claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological measurement patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references.
patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01377
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,347,656 before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings.
patent · May 8, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01376
Samsung and Radian have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01376 under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) after reaching a confidential settlement. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01378
Samsung Electronics and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute (IPR2025-01378) before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement documents confidential.
patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01377
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,347,656. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
patent · May 8, 2025
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
· IPR2025-01356
Regions Bank and USAA jointly moved to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
· IPR2025-01356
Regions Bank and United Services Automobile Association have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 12,211,095 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under §317(a) before any merits are decided.
patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01267
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,126,025, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01267
BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies have settled the IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,126,025. The parties filed a joint motion to seal the settlement agreement as business confidential information, keeping it separate from the IPR record.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01254
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on remand, holding that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent are unpatentable. The Board relied on an obviousness analysis over a combination of prior‑art references and affirmed the claim construction of “identify an object.”
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01253
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on Remand, finding all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent unpatentable. Apple’s arguments on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references prevailed.
patent · May 8, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01233
Apple Inc. filed a motion to dismiss its IPR petition against Telcom Ventures LLC’s ’708 patent, arguing that the Board has not yet decided on institution and that dismissal will conserve resources. The motion references the related district‑court litigation where the patent was dismissed with prejudice.
patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
· IPR2025-01356
Regions Bank and USAA settled their inter partes review dispute over USAA’s automobile‑insurance patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPRs and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01254
Apple prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci, finding claims 7 and 10‑14 of the ’299 patent unpatentable for obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer, and Park references.
patent · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01252
Apple has filed an IPR petition asserting that Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent is wholly obvious over a combination of five prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding that all 23 claims are unpatentable.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01252
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent succeeded on 12 of the 23 claims, finding them obvious over prior‑art references such as Lisogurski, Carlson, Tran, Isaacson and Valencell‑093. The remaining claims were not shown unpatentable.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01253
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s ‘533 patent resulted in all challenged claims being found unpatentable. The Board held that the claims were obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01252
Apple’s wearable physiological‑monitoring patent was declared entirely unpatentable after Samsung’s PTAB challenge, with the Board finding the claims obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering optical sensors, pulse‑rate modulation, spaced emitters, and reflective surfaces.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01252
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health monitoring patent concluded with the Board finding all 23 claims unpatentable for obviousness. The decision affirmed the claim construction of “identify an object” and rejected the need for further briefing.
patent · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01252
Apple, on behalf of Samsung, filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 patent covering wearable optical health monitors. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art (Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer) and seeks institution of the review.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01250
Apple prevailed in IPR2020‑00175, with the PTAB finding all six challenged claims of the ’299 patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer and Park references.
