US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 104 of 286 · 8,574 total
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,295,288. The Board terminated the IPR by joint motion, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,289,016 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317 to end the proceeding before a final decision is issued.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236, jointly moving to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenges P&G's deodorant stick patent, arguing the claims are obvious over known formulations and that P&G's RPI arguments fail. The Board’s prior findings support the petitioner's position, and the request for director review should be denied.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,233,978, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before trial.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat’s preliminary response argues that Anker’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art was already considered by the USPTO and does not disclose the full claim scope.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the review of patent 9,586,659. The settlement agreement was kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL GIKEN INCORPORATED
Amazon, its affiliates and Twitch filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01161 after reaching a confidential settlement with NL Giken, ending the dispute over U.S. Patent 9,319,615.
Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.
Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy have settled their PTAB IPR dispute over a photovoltaic inverter patent and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, requesting termination of the proceeding.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies Ltd. rebuts Anker Innovations’ IPR petition, arguing that none of the cited references anticipate or render obvious the claims of its 9,083,204 inductive power transfer patent. The Patent Owner seeks confirmation of patentability.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC argues that the PTAB correctly found the challenged deodorant stick claims obvious and that the patent owner’s request for Director Review should be denied. The response emphasizes proper claim construction, prior‑art teachings, and complete RPI disclosure.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,233,978 before trial. The Board granted a Joint Termination Motion and dismissed the petitions.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,175,148. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement documents as confidential, without deciding the merits.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Procter & Gamble requests PTAB Director Review to overturn a decision that found its natural deodorant patent obvious. The company alleges the Board misapplied an extrinsic hardness test, ignored motivation to combine prior art, and the petitioner failed to disclose all real parties in interest.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola jointly moved with Headwater Research to terminate IPR 2024‑01181 after settling the dispute over Patent 10,749,700, including related district‑court litigation.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,814,170 before the Board could institute a trial. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, which the PTAB granted, dismissing the petitions.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,814,170 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the case, and the parties cite judicial economy for the termination.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies defends its 9,048,696 inductive‑charging patent against Anker’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited references do not render any of the challenged claims obvious and that there is no motivation to combine them.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,103,640, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR before institution.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display requests Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found Pictiva’s OLED claim unpatentable, arguing the Board ignored a jury verdict that upheld the claim and presented inconsistent claim‑construction arguments.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
An email notifies that the PTAB has received a Director Review request in IPR2024-01083 and outlines strict response limits for Apple.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,814,170. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding before institution, keeping the settlement confidential.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display argues that the Board’s obviousness findings for Pictiva’s OLED patent are sound and that no claim‑construction inconsistency exists, seeking denial of Pictiva’s Director review request.
Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.
Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,786,133 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
The PTAB denied Intel’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute the IPR against Ericsson’s U.S. Patent 10,142,659.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00990, finding Halliburton’s claims 11,12 and 14‑20 unpatentable and also striking substitute claims 29‑37, while upholding claims 1‑10 and 21‑23. Halliburton has appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,710,473 and jointly request the Board keep the settlement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,710,473 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display contests Pictiva’s request for Director Review, asserting the PTAB correctly found the ’223 patent claims obvious over the Ma reference. The petitioner maintains no inconsistency with district‑court findings and seeks denial of the review.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. filed an unopposed motion to keep its settlement with M.E.A.C. Engineering confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 8,858,534.
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.