US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 103 of 188 · 5,620 total
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' request to institute IPR against Adaptive Spectrum regarding patent 10848398. The denial was based on the proximity of a related district court trial date and the perceived lack of strong merits.
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against Essity Hygiene and Health AB's absorbent article patent (9308138). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over prior art, including Nakazawa.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’595 patent succeeded. All 24 claims were found obvious over prior‑art references Hazelzet, Buchmann and, for certain claims, Kim, rendering the patent unpatentable.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have entered settlement agreements with Woodbury Wireless and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,211,895. The motion relies on statutory authority allowing termination when parties agree to settle.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s claim construction of its remote desktop patent (U.S. 8,934,887). The petition argues the Board misread Figure 2, applied a conjunctive construction contrary to the specification, and ignored the Acting Director’s guidance. Amazon seeks reversal of the institution denial to allow the IPR to proceed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging B.S.D. Crown’s remote‑desktop patent. The petitioner contends the Board abused discretion by rejecting a preliminary reply on claim construction and misreading the patent’s scope.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’218 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of success on all 22 claims, based on obviousness over Hazelzet combined with JEDEC, Buchmann, and Kim.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have settled their IPR dispute with Woodbury Wireless over U.S. Patent 10,211,895, filing the settlement as confidential and moving to terminate the proceeding.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T, and T‑Mobile jointly moved to terminate an IPR against Woodbury Wireless's patent 10,211,895. The PTAB granted the motion, sealing the settlement agreements and ending the proceeding before trial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged Netlist’s 8,489,837 patent in an IPR, leading the PTAB to find all five asserted claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art. The Board rejected the patent owner’s constructions and upheld Samsung’s obviousness arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Netlist seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its memory‑controller patent, arguing a faulty claim construction and insufficient particularity in Samsung’s grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung filed an authorized response defending the PTAB's institution of an IPR against Netlist over a memory‑module signaling patent. The brief argues the Board correctly construed the claim language and that the six grounds are obvious over Hazelzet. Netlist's challenges on waste of resources and new arguments are rejected.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, and Kim references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully challenged Netlist’s ’218 memory‑module patent in an IPR, with the PTAB finding all 22 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 29 claims of Netlist’s ’623 memory‑module patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior art, in a decision favoring Samsung’s SK Hynix petitioners.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs against Netlist’s memory‑module patents, keeping the institution rulings in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Netlist’s 11,880,319 patent covering memory‑module signaling. The petition relies on obviousness over Hazelzet combined with JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang, and Kim references, and cites prior IPR estoppel. The Board has yet to rule.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Fortinet has filed a petition for inter partes review of Croga Innovations' U.S. Patent 10,601,780, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art firewalls and virtualization systems. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and seeks institution of the IPR.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Fortinet's attempt to invalidate Croga Innovations Ltd.'s patent on network security claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Fortinet failed to demonstrate obviousness over prior art, specifically Delco and Adams. This denial maintains the validity of key virtualization and firewall technology for Croga.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon's IPR petition against B.S.D. Crown, Ltd. was denied after the Board maintained its finding that Petitioner lacked a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits. The denial hinged on the Board adopting a conjunctive construction for key claim terms and finding no prior art disclosed all necessary components.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon's request for Director Review regarding the institution denial of patent 8934887 was denied. Although the Board misapprehended one figure, the Panel upheld the conjunctive claim construction based on the full intrinsic record.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon's attempt to invalidate B.S.D. Crown's '887 patent failed before the PTAB, with the Board denying the IPR petition. The denial hinged on Amazon failing to adequately address a key claim construction—the conjunctive nature of an element related to hardware action.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
The Director granted review and vacated the denial of institution in an Amazon v. B.S.D. Crown IPR, remanding the case for further proceedings to resolve a disputed claim term.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully challenged a pharmaceutical patent (11260061) in an IPR, showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board's decision hinged on extensive claim construction, particularly defining 'adsorbed onto a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.'
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution in this IPR, challenging all 20 claims of Netlist's patent (11880319) based on obviousness and anticipation. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over various combinations of prior art, including Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang, and Kim. This decision sets a strong precedent for challenging memory module initialization claims using industry standards and technical literature.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over a Nokia wireless‑technology patent and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,571,833 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR on patent 9,571,833 after instituting the review. The Board granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement documents.
MediaTek, Inc. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 12 claims of Redstone Logics’ ’339 patent covering multi‑core processor voltage and clock management, arguing obviousness over several prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute the review.
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.