US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 107 of 286 · 8,574 total
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,103,640 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google’s IPR against a 7,454,056 LCD patent was terminated after the Patent Owner disclaimed all remaining claims, prompting the Board to enter an adverse judgment against the owner.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Bell Semiconductor, LLC
NXP USA and Bell Semiconductor jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00168 after reaching a settlement, and the Board granted the termination while keeping the settlement documents confidential.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The PTAB affirmed all claims of LG Energy Solution’s lithium‑ion battery patent after finding the challenger’s obviousness arguments unsupported. The Board emphasized that Ohata’s masterbatch embeds carbon nanotubes, preventing the required ionic attachment, and rejected the petitioner’s speculation about resin removal.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics filed a Request for Director Review challenging a PTAB denial of institution for its IPR against Sfara’s vehicle‑identification patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) by demanding a means‑plus‑function construction that the claims lack. The request seeks clarification of the rule and reversal of the denial.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
Corteva Agriscience seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that instituted inter‑partes review of its transgenic corn patent, arguing the Board misapplied enablement law and misread factual evidence of germplasm availability.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution’s challenge to the ’924 lithium‑ion battery patent was rejected. The Board found no sufficient evidence of obviousness over the cited prior art, leaving all five claims intact.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Intel has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Ericsson's 10,142,659 patent covering a deblocking filter in video codecs. Intel argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards regarding result‑effective variables. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the trial.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless jointly request that their 5G NR settlement be kept confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v.National Nail, Corp.
PrimeSource Building Products and National Nail settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,378,218 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR on the 8,989,952 vehicle‑crash detection patent. The petitioner argues that the Board’s reading of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) unfairly forces disclosure of means‑plus‑function constructions that are not at issue. The request seeks clarification of the rule and reversal of the denial.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless, LLC
The IPR over Cobblestone Wireless's patent 7,924,802 was terminated after the parties reached a settlement. A joint motion to dismiss was filed and granted, ending the proceeding before institution.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,389,038. They jointly filed a motion to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR2024‑01006, finding that none of the challenged claims of the ‘909 lithium‑ion battery patent are unpatentable. LG Energy Solution’s obviousness arguments over multiple prior‑art combinations were rejected.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,080,472, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
ParkerVision requests Director Review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found Texas Instruments' claims obvious based on expert simulations. The owner argues the Board abused discretion by relying on unreliable simulations and allowing a post‑institution do‑over, seeking vacatur and termination of the IPR.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled all disputes over four patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes reviews without a final written decision.
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
Duration Media petitions the PTAB Director to review a Board decision that upheld claims of a web‑ad tracking patent. The petitioner asserts the Board ignored prior art and admissions that render the claims obvious. It seeks reversal or remand of the decision.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01048 concerning patent 10,547,648. The denial leaves the institution decision in place.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
RPX's petition to invalidate ParkerVision's down-conversion patent was denied by the PTAB, which found no reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.
FormFactor and Technoprobe settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,035,885 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya entered a joint settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate eight inter partes review proceedings without a final written decision.
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 moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Procter & Gamble has requested a Director Review of the IPR against Dr. Squatch, limiting the petitioner’s response to 15 pages and prohibiting new evidence.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments successfully defended its 7,496,342 patent against ParkerVision’s Director Review request, which sought to overturn the PTAB’s institution and obviousness findings. The Board affirmed that claims 18‑21 are unpatentable as obvious over DeMaw and Macnally, and the review request was denied.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display has been given five business days to respond to Pictiva's Director Review request in IPR2024-01095, with a strict 15‑page limit and no new evidence allowed.
FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.
FormFactor and Technoprobe have settled their IPR dispute over a probe‑card patent. They jointly request that the settlement agreement be treated as confidential business information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 8,451,339. The settlement resolves all disputes and the agreement is kept confidential.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,873,685, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to end the review as no merits decision has been rendered.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,639,811 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
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.