US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 104 of 188 · 5,620 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 9,571,833 patent on HEVC motion‑vector prediction, arguing obviousness over Rusert/Zheng and Nakamura/WD4 and disputing the examiner’s allowance.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
Innoscience America petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Infineon's 9,070,755 transistor patent, seeking cancellation of all 14 claims on the basis of anticipation and obviousness over Fujishima and related prior art. The petition argues that discretionary denial is improper and requests the Board find the claims unpatentable.
MediaTek, Inc. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge against Redstone Logics LLC's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The dispute centered on multi-core processor design and clock ratio controllers.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
The PTAB denied Innoscience America's petition to institute IPR against Infineon Technologies regarding patent 9070755. The Board found that factors favoring discretionary denial, such as overlap with a parallel ITC investigation, outweighed arguments for institution.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Nokia's video encoding patent (9571833). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple obviousness grounds, particularly those combining Rusert and Zheng.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia, Ericsson, AT&T and other carriers have filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of their IPR challenging a Korean-owned telecom patent. They argue the Board abused discretion by ignoring a Sotera stipulation and misapplying Fintiv factors.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC defends the Board’s denial of institution in IPR2025‑00036, arguing petitioners introduced new arguments and that the Board’s discretionary analysis under §314(a) was proper. The request for Director Review is contested and remains pending.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The USPTO denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00036, leaving the original denial in place.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia, Ericsson, AT&T, Verizon and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Pegasus’s 5G slice‑aware handover patent, arguing obviousness over multiple 3GPP standards and that the prior art was not raised during prosecution.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR because the efficiency of ongoing parallel district court litigation outweighed the merits of the patent claims. The denial was based on the discretionary Fintiv factors, despite strong arguments from the petitioner regarding the lack of prior consideration for the grounds.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics filed a joint motion asking the PTB to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, separating them from the public patent file.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola settled their IPR against Multifold’s patent 9,058,153, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2025-00062. The PTAB granted the motion, ending the proceeding before any institution decision and keeping the settlement documents confidential.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia, Ericsson, AT&T, Verizon and T‑Mobile have filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR targeting a Korean‑owned LTE patent. They argue the Board misapplied discretionary standards, ignored a Sotera stipulation, and failed to consider domestic economic impacts.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola Mobility, Google, and Multifold International have jointly filed a request to keep their settlement covenants confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The request seeks to keep the settlement documents out of the public patent file.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,804,678 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet instituted the proceeding, and the parties cite public‑policy reasons for termination.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC opposes Nokia and other carriers' request for Director Review of the Board’s denial to institute an IPR. The owner asserts the petitioners raised new arguments and that the Board’s decision was not an abuse of discretion.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola Mobility, Google and Multifold International have resolved their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,058,153 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The parties submitted covenants not to sue and seek early termination for judicial economy.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The USPTO Director denied the petition by Nokia and other telecom carriers to review the PTAB’s decision denying institution of IPRs against Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s patents.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,996,693. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and partially treated the settlement documents as confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s patent 8,996,693 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and related regulations.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after it had been instituted, and the Board granted termination while keeping the settlement documents confidential.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 15 claims of Slyde Analytics’ smartwatch power‑mode patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also requests that the Board not deny institution under discretionary provisions.
Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,563,338, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering EV charging, GUI interfaces, and HVAC control. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Arthrex, Inc. et al. v.Medshape, Inc.
Arthrex has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of Medshape’s ’222 bone‑fixation patent, arguing obviousness over Monassevitch and over a Bolesky‑Hoffman combination. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §314.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia and four other telecom operators have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of six claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s U.S. Patent 10,616,932, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references (Lin1, Lin2, Zhang). The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,996,693 patent covering dynamic and static data processing. The petition asserts obviousness over IBM’s Foster and Williams publications and seeks cancellation of 18 claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Arthrex, Inc. et al. v.Medshape, Inc.
The PTAB denied Arthrex's IPR petition against Medshape's patent (7985222), citing the complex and overlapping nature of co-pending district court litigation.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola and Google successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Multifold International for patent 9134756, focusing on dual-screen UI technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under both anticipation (Yook/Purcell) and obviousness grounds.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Nokia's wireless connection patents against Pegasus Wireless. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, citing significant investment and proximity to a parallel district court trial date.
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.