US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 103 of 286 · 8,574 total
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
Optronic Sciences requests Director Review of an IPR against its patent, arguing that BOE’s state‑linked controller Beijing Electronics Holdings was not disclosed as a real party in interest. The patent owner cites recent Director decisions that tighten RPI requirements and seeks vacatur of the Board’s decision and termination of the IPR.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences LLC’s request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01132. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and applied the new Director’s Memorandum, leaving the institution in place.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion, citing good cause and confidentiality considerations.
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 grant termination under settlement‑friendly policy.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and ASUS have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,291,052 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy favors termination after settlement.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear jointly moved to terminate multiple IPRs after reaching a confidential settlement. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,750,965. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
Optronic Sciences LLC seeks Director Review to vacate the Board’s decision in IPR2024-01130, arguing that BOE’s disclosed controller, BEH, makes the RPI issue unresolved. The petition cites recent Director memoranda that shift the burden to the petitioner to identify all RPIs.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,683,643, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Staton Techiya have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 11,750,965. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung, Harman and ST CasesTech entered a joint settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate eight related IPRs without a final decision. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have filed a joint motion to terminate the ITC investigation over OLED display modules, citing a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC et al.
Samsung, its U.S. affiliate, and Harman jointly moved to terminate their IPRs against Staton Techiya’s patents. The PTAB granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,244,800 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully challenged the ’282 battery‑binder patent, with the PTAB finding all 16 claims unpatentable based on obviousness over multiple carbon‑nanotube references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC et al.
Samsung Electronics, Harman International and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR over patent 11,659,315 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Minka Lighting and Wangs Alliance have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01027 concerning patent 11028854.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The USPTO denied Insta360’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on GoPro’s camera patent (US 11,336,832). The denial leaves the original PTAB ruling in place.
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Minka Lighting, LLC and Wangs Alliance Corporation have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01027 concerning patent 11028854. The motion seeks to end the inter partes review.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate the IPRs covering SherryWear’s footwear patent (U.S. 10,219,550). The Board cited statutory authority to end the review before any merits were decided.
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 IPR2024‑01205. The Board held that the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was correctly applied and that Motorola failed to show specific errors. The denial leaves the Director Review decision standing.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security reached a confidential settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 11,775,326. All pending motions were dismissed as moot and the settlement documents were sealed.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,667,304 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing 35 U.S.C. §317.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,667,304 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and cites the lack of a final written decision.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly request the Board keep the settlement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,291,236, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled all disputes over patent 9,723,878 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the review under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and keep the settlement confidential.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries and B&D Technologies jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations during an IPR.
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.