Georginna W. Braden
28 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
28 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
The PTAB terminated IPR2024-01324 (patent 9,098,855) after Quotient Technology and Intelligent Clearing Network reached a settlement, filing a joint motion to end the review.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Intelligent Clearing Network settled their dispute over patents 9,070,133 and 9,098,855, leading the PTAB to terminate both inter partes reviews. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,069,737 before any trial. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their patent dispute, leading to the termination of three IPRs before any trial was instituted.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,949,752, filing joint motions that led the PTAB to terminate the IPRs. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 1‑15 of Netlist’s U.S. Patent 9,824,035 are unpatentable. Samsung and Micron successfully argued that the claims are obvious over the Perego memory‑module disclosure combined with the JEDEC DDR2 standard.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s 9,858,215 B1 memory‑module patent. The PTAB found all 29 claims obvious over Perego and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering them unpatentable.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s petition to invalidate a patent was denied by the PTAB because it failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 14 challenged claims. The Board found the obviousness arguments lacked the required particularity and rationale.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. filed an IPR against M.E.A.C. Engineering’s patent 8,858,534. The parties settled before the Board could institute a trial, leading to a termination order.
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela and M.E.A.C. Engineering settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,858,534 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding before any trial, keeping the settlement confidential.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,972,654 B2 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement documents as confidential.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies sought IPR of Tecan Genomics' patent covering nucleic acid technologies. The patent owner filed a terminal disclaimer of the entire patent, prompting the Board to grant an adverse judgment and terminate the proceeding.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
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.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
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.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr reached a settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR concerning patent 8,275,827 before any merits were decided. The settlement agreement was kept confidential under Board rules.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB denied American Airlines and Southwest Airlines’ petition to institute an IPR against Intellectual Ventures’ ’326 patent covering high‑data‑rate multi‑channel WLAN. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 18 challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB denied Apple’s inter partes review petition against a load‑balancing patent, finding the obviousness arguments over Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski insufficiently particularized. No claims were instituted or found unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
In IPR2023‑00454, the PTAB held that all 15 claims of Netlist’s U.S. Patent 11,093,417 are obvious over the combined teachings of the Perego memory‑module disclosure and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’215 memory‑module patent in an IPR, leading the PTAB to find all 29 claims unpatentable as obvious over Perego and the JEDEC DDR2 standard.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU MESSAGING US LP
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines sought to invalidate a load‑balancing patent, alleging obviousness over three prior‑art references. The PTAB found the petition lacked the required particularity and denied institution of the IPR.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. sought to invalidate Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑profile patent. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of success and instituted the IPR, focusing on obviousness over several prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung and its co‑petitioners proved all 15 claims of Netlist’s ’417 memory‑module patent obvious over the Perego disclosure and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation and M.E.A.C. Engineering reached a settlement that led to the termination of IPR2024-01001 before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung Electronics and SiOnyx reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-01431 concerning patent 11,069,737 B2. The settlement agreement is kept confidential per statutory requirements.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00697 and related proceedings. The settlement was documented via a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice filed in federal court.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board terminated the proceeding on the parties' joint motion.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,070,530, leading to a joint motion that terminated the IPR proceeding before it was instituted.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks successfully challenged 15 claims of the ’827 patent, finding them obvious over the OceanStore system. Anticipation arguments failed, and the Board adopted broader claim constructions that still rendered the claims unpatentable.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.