US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 100 of 286 · 8,574 total
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes in the ITC investigation of OLED display modules, prompting a joint motion to terminate the case. The parties argue that termination aligns with public interest and statutory authority.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denied institution decision, arguing that the Board misapplied the Hulu "reasonable likelihood" standard and failed to recognize the Dammann paper as prior art. The request seeks institution of an IPR against Intellectual Ventures' OFDM patent.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites settlement and judicial economy as reasons for termination.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,245,374. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group opposes Optronic Sciences' Director Review request, asserting it is the only real party in interest and that BEH lacks control. The petition highlights PO's untimely filing and new arguments, seeking denial of the request.
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Network System Technologies, LLC
The PTAB granted Qualcomm’s joinder request and instituted inter partes review of Network System Technologies’ NoC patent, covering claims 2,6,9‑16.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear entered a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate the pending IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,869,510.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus and other camera makers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading to the termination of four inter partes review proceedings covering patent 10,873,685. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that had vacated the institution of IPR2024‑01208. The Board held the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactive and that Motorola offered no specific error or proper new evidence.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Early Warning Services petitions the PTAB Director to vacate an institution decision that relied on post‑petition evidence. The Patent Owner claims the Board violated statutory thresholds and due‑process requirements.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,510 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR, citing 35 U.S.C. §317.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in their Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,551 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet decided the merits, allowing termination under §317.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.
Nike and SherryWear settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,808,036 B1. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate a series of inter partes reviews, including the one covering patent 10,219,551. The termination was entered under 35 U.S.C. §317 after the trials had already been instituted.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found 22 of the 23 claims of The Noco Company's jump‑starter patent unpatentable in an IPR filed by Deltran USA LLC, leaving only claim 11 intact.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Stratus Medical’s response contends that Avanos’s IPR challenges are legally and technically deficient, emphasizing lack of enablement, teaching away, and strong objective indicia of non‑obviousness.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,550 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted ADC Solutions Auto LLC’s petition to institute an inter partes review of The Noco Company’s portable jump‑starter patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one claim.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Cambridge Enterprise has requested a Director Review of IPR2024-01235. Pascal Technologies may respond within five business days, limited to five pages and without new evidence. The Board will decide whether to grant the review.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,808,036 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate eight related IPRs without deciding the merits.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01208 against Stellar’s request for Director Review, emphasizing proper application of Fintiv factors and Sotera stipulation. The Board’s decision to institute remains unchallenged.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPRs covering body‑camera patents. The company argues the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violates the APA and due‑process, and it is willing to expand its stipulation to satisfy discretionary standards.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Stratus Medical’s response to Avanos’s IPR argues that the petition’s obviousness challenges fail because the alleged combination is vague, non‑enabling, and not taught by the prior art, while emphasizing commercial success and industry praise as objective indicia of non‑obviousness.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola seeks rehearing to overturn the Director’s denial of institution for its body‑camera patents, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violates the APA and due process. The company offers an expanded stipulation to satisfy the Board’s discretionary analysis.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that vacated the institution of four IPRs, including the challenge to Stellar's patent 9,485,471. The Board held the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactively applicable and the petitioner offered no new substantive evidence.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola’s request for rehearing of a PTAB Director Review Decision was denied. The Board held that the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactive and that Motorola had already had a chance to argue under the prior guidance.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC requests Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Motorola’s patents, alleging misapplication of Fintiv factor analysis and improper discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against Stellar’s request for Director Review. The brief argues that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors, that the rescinded Guidance Memo is irrelevant, and that no abuse of discretion occurred.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.