US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 106 of 286 · 8,574 total
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Kia and Toyota challenge a patent owner's request to overturn a PTAB decision on a vehicle e‑key system, arguing the Board correctly applied the Kleve prior art. They seek denial of the Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 11,683,643 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless have filed a joint motion to keep their 5G patent settlement materials confidential under applicable statutes. The request cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) and argues it is timely.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Pictiva Displays has filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung Display’s ‘164 patent, arguing the Board ignored a full Fintiv analysis after a guidance memo was rescinded.
TransCore, LP et al. v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products settled their IPR dispute over a handheld scanner patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings before trial, treating the settlement as confidential.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Emerging Automotive LLC has filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s decision that its e‑key patent claims are anticipated by the Kleve reference. The patent owner argues the Board relied on undisclosed "rental start period" functionality, constituting an abuse of discretion and erroneous factual findings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC et al.
Samsung, its U.S. affiliate and Harman have reached a settlement with Staton Techiya over U.S. Patent 11,659,315 covering smart‑headphone technology. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Minka Lighting and Wangs Alliance settled their IPR dispute over a lighting patent before the trial was instituted. The Board dismissed the petition and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google and Cerence entered a joint settlement that led to the termination of two inter partes review proceedings covering Cerence's automotive voice‑assistant patents. The Board granted the motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia reached a settlement, leading to a joint motion that terminated the IPRs covering Nokia’s patent 8,918,741. The Board granted the motion and treated the settlement documents as confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences filed a joint notice confirming that the IPR oral hearing transcript and final written decision will be made fully public, and that specific exhibits will not remain sealed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google and Cerence have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,081,993, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board has been asked to dismiss the proceeding based on the settlement.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential. The motion asks the PTAB to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information under statutory provisions.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The Board cited public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and treated the agreement as confidential business information.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing 35 U.S.C. § 317. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and Asus have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, requesting the Board to separate the documents from the public file.
Hartmann US Inc. et al. v.Tabone, Maurice
Hartmann US Inc. and The Happy Group settled their IPR dispute with inventor Maurice Tabone over Patent 10,287,070. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding before institution and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision, arguing the Board misapplied obviousness law on two grounds involving Kurashina/Sato and Murade‑109/Murade‑125 references. The petitioner contends that universal motivations and known techniques provide sufficient motivation to combine the references.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen, Nissan and Foras Technologies filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to withdraw the IPR, effectively ending the dispute.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences settled three USPTO IPRs (01130, 01132, 01133) and withdrew their pending Director Review requests, ending further proceedings.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco seeks Director Review of a PTAB denial that found its VPLS failover claims un‑obvious over the Mitchell reference. The petition alleges the Board improperly added claim limitations, applied the wrong obviousness standard, and ignored the modified prior‑art embodiment.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya settled their IPR over patent 11,750,965 and jointly moved to have the settlement kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,233,978 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly filed a motion to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request cites statutory and regulatory authority and argues the agreement contains confidential dispute‑resolution terms.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation and M.E.A.C. Engineering reached a settlement that led to the termination of IPR2024-01001 before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO have settled their dispute over Patent 7,233,978 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and data‑storage startup Kove IO have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,814,170 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,103,640 before the Board instituted a trial. The joint termination motion was granted, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology jointly moved to end IPR 2024‑00963 and asked the PTAB to keep their final settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted the joint motion and kept the settlement confidential.
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.