US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 102 of 286 · 8,574 total
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
GoPro has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s finding that Insta360’s claims 7‑8 and 17‑18 are unpatentable. The petition argues the Board misapplied obviousness analysis, ignored unpredictable‑effect evidence, and misinterpreted claim language.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,903,546 and jointly request the Board to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR disputes over four wireless patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement documents confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,639,811. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
Imperative Care has successfully instituted an IPR against Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent, asserting unpatentability under §§102 and 103 based on Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success and ordered review of all challenged claims.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences’ request to revisit the institution of its IPR against BOE Technology Group, finding no extraordinary circumstances and that the new Director’s guidance did not apply.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health have settled their disputes over four patents and filed a joint motion to terminate the related IPRs. The motion relies on statutory authority and Board precedent favoring termination after settlement.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple has filed a request for rehearing, arguing that the PTAB abused its discretion in instituting an IPR on patent 10,547,648. The owners claim the Board relied on unmapped prior art and misread claim language.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies reached a settlement that resolved all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,877,266. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPR, and the Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries and B&D Technologies settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,632,815 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies and Cambridge Enterprise Limited, along with two universities, settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,230,656. The Board terminated the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--
Reolink Digital Technology withdrew its petition to challenge KT Imaging's U.S. Patent No. 8,314,481, ending the inter partes review before any substantive proceedings began.
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--
Reolink Digital Technology filed a motion to withdraw its petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,004,602. The patent owner, KT Imaging, did not oppose, and the Board was asked to terminate the proceeding at its early stage.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences’ request to revisit the institution of six inter partes reviews filed by BOE Technology Group. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and held that the deadline for additional briefing had passed.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
NXP USA and Bell Northern Research entered a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01044 covering patent RE48,629. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,918,741 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 11,910,984 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia filed a joint request to treat their settlement documents as confidential and to terminate the IPR over patent 8,036,273.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over Nokia's wireless‑technology patent and jointly request that the settlement documents be kept confidential, asking the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,036,273 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 7,280,599 and have jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate four IPRs involving Dyson patents. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Hecht, Thomas v.Carver Edison, Inc.
The petitioner and Carver Edison, Inc. settled their inter partes review before trial, resulting in a joint motion to dismiss and termination of the proceeding. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Verizon, T‑Mobile, AT&T and Headwater Research have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,924,543 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter‑partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
BOE Technology Group opposes Optronic Sciences' request for Director Review, asserting that Beijing Electronics Holdings is not a real party in interest and that the patent owner delayed raising RPI issues. The Board’s prior rulings supporting BOE’s RPI identification are reaffirmed, and the Director Review request is urged to be denied.
Hartmann US Inc. et al. v.Tabone, Maurice
Hartmann US Inc., Brødrene Hartmann A/S, and The Happy Group Inc. jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01037 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent owner Maurice J.P. Tabone. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under its discretionary authority.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have filed a joint motion to terminate the ITC investigation into OLED display modules, citing a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board is asked to end the case under statutory settlement provisions.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Apple’s request for a review of the IPR’s Final Written Decision, leaving the decision against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC in place.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group opposes Optronic Sciences' request for Director Review, asserting that BOE is the sole real party in interest and that the patent owner's RPI arguments are untimely and unsupported.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Pictiva Displays has filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of its display‑panel patent claims after the Board relied on a rescinded Guidance Memo. The owner argues the Board should have applied a full Fintiv analysis given the parallel district‑court trial schedule.
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.