US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 104 of 291 · 8,722 total
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA and MWE Investments while keeping Generac Powers Systems as a remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements were made confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power Equipment filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk and Longitude settled their IPRs over flash‑memory patents before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petitions and terminate the proceedings.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk and Longitude Flash have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,456,365 and jointly moved to dismiss the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties rely on statutory authority to terminate the proceeding pre‑institution.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
Sandisk and Longitude Flash jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑01281, citing a settlement that they want kept confidential under §317. The Board is asked to seal the settlement and end the proceeding.
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE jointly asked the PTAB to keep their Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the patent file. The request cites statutory provisions for limited access and seeks Board notification of any third‑party requests.
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, MWE and Champion have settled the IPR over a dual‑fuel engine patent, filing a joint request to keep the settlement confidential and to withdraw the proceeding.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Exhibit 2002 documents the settlement agreement between Top Glory Trading Group, DP Dream Pairs, and Cole Haan, concluding IPR2025-01394.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Exhibit 2002 contains the settlement agreement between Top Glory Trading Group, DP Dream Pairs and Cole Haan, indicating the IPR has been resolved.
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted settlement motions for Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments, terminating their involvement in multiple IPRs against Champion Power’s generator patents, while Generac Power Systems remains as a petitioner.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT petitions the PTAB to invalidate Haemonetics' plasma‑collection patent, asserting obviousness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible abstract ideas.
TikTok Inc. v.ShopSee, Inc.
TikTok has filed an IPR petition challenging ShopSee’s ’316 patent covering interactive video layers, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art such as Ohliger and related references.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Top Glory and DP Dream have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cole Haan’s 10,327,511 shoe patent, arguing that its ornamental knit‑upper features are obvious over Dua and several prior‑art references.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Top Glory and DP Dream have filed an IPR petition challenging Cole Haan’s U.S. Patent 11,041,262 covering knitted shoe uppers. They assert that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Dua, ’762, ’288, Flusser and Litke, and that ornamental features lack patentable weight.
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight and MWE have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Champion Power’s dual‑fuel generator patent (U.S. 10,697,398). The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of 45 claims.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Champion Power Equipment’s ’654 dual‑fuel generator patent, alleging obviousness and lack of structure under §§103, 102, and 112(f). The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Top Glory and DP Dream have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cole Haan's 10,443,163 patent covering knitted shoe uppers, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
SanDisk has filed a petition to invalidate 42 claims of Longitude Flash’s 2022 SONOS memory patent, asserting obviousness over Lee ’255, Lee ’961, and Fujiwara. The petition details claim constructions and cites extensive prior art.
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01271 after finding the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Other related proceedings were denied institutional review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs and three PGRs against Samsung, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent PTAB precedent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks' request for Director Review to overturn institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Samsung, finding no good cause and applying the Revvo precedent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs/PGRs against Samsung, arguing that Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions in the district court undermine its PTAB petitions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs filed by Samsung, leaving the institution orders in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks asks the PTAB to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs and PGRs against Samsung, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions in the district court and before the Board violate recent Revvo precedent. The request seeks out‑of‑time Director Review to terminate the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to overturn the institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPRs, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent PTAB precedent. The petition seeks vacatur of institution and termination of the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings filed by Samsung, arguing that Samsung’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions in a parallel district‑court case constitute good cause for reversal.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO denied XiFi Networks' request for Director Review, upholding the institution of multiple IPRs against Samsung after the Patent Owner failed to show good cause for extending the deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review, leaving the institution of multiple IPRs against Samsung Electronics in place. The Board cited lack of good cause for a deadline extension and the Revvo precedent on inconsistent claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO denied XiFi Networks' request to overturn the institution of Samsung's Wi‑Fi patents, finding no good cause for a deadline extension and insufficient justification for differing claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPRs, arguing that Samsung’s contradictory claim constructions in the district court breach Revvo precedent and invalidate the petitions.
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.