US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 108 of 286 · 8,574 total
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 under federal rules, also seeking termination of the IPR.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have reached a settlement, jointly requesting termination of the IPR concerning patent 8,451,339. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under statutory authority.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. filed an IPR against M.E.A.C. Engineering’s patent 8,858,534. The parties settled before the Board could institute a trial, leading to a termination order.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,077,991 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement documents be kept confidential.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T and other telecom operators seek Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against ASUS’s 5G QoS patent, alleging the panel ignored prior‑art disclosures and expert testimony.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Nokia's patent covering video encoding techniques. The petitioner asserts the Board misinterpreted claim language and ignored obviousness evidence from the Koga reference.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that many claims of the ’555 adaptive‑rate streaming patent are obvious over prior art (Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0), rendering them unpatentable, while other claims remain valid.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. is facing a Director Review request from Smith Interface Technologies in IPR2024-01088. The Board has limited the petitioner’s response to 15 pages and barred new evidence, with a decision pending.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00924, which rendered the Director Review request for IPR2024-00920 moot.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,077,991 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over patent 8,077,991 and have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination serves public policy and resource efficiency.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that 17 of the 25 challenged claims of DISH’s adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent are obvious over prior art, while 8 claims survive. The decision affirms most of fuboTV’s objections but leaves several claims intact.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00996, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies defends its 8,626,461 patent on inductive power efficiency monitoring against Anker Innovations' IPR challenge. The response argues that the cited prior art (Olson, Stevens, Jin) fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed features. The Board is urged to uphold the patentability of claims 13‑18.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of claim 10 of Micron’s challenged 3D NAND patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over the Toyama reference.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held 16 of the 25 challenged claims of DISH’s adaptive‑rate streaming patent unpatentable as obvious over Ogdon and Allen, with two additional claims invalidated over Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0. The remaining nine claims were upheld.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,918,741 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under the settlement confidentiality provisions.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Petitioners fuboTV and Yanka have responded to DISH’s Director Review request, arguing the Board’s decision that all challenged claims of patent 8,868,772 are unpatentable should stand. They contend DISH’s arguments are outside the scope of review and that the prior art clearly discloses continuous playback.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies settled their wireless‑charging patent dispute in IPR2024‑00995. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
The PTAB denied Cambridge Mobile Telemetics' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2024-00952 and IPR2024-00966, keeping the institution decisions denied. The petitioner's appeal was rejected without substantive reconsideration.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron’s IPR against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent was instituted, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over the Toyama reference.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Weatherford's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00990 concerning Halliburton's oilfield patent 11,333,007 B2.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,083,204 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
DISH Technologies requests a Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found its adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent obvious. The petition alleges procedural and substantive errors, including improper theory shifting and misinterpretation of prior art.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The USPTO denied Kia and Toyota's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00981 concerning Emerging Automotive's vehicle‑control patent (US 9,365,188).
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory authority.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies filed a preliminary response to Anker Innovations' IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,083,204, arguing that the petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood of success and that the prior art was already considered, warranting a denial of institution.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑00972 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,640,733. The Board was asked to end the proceeding per 35 U.S.C. §317.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies Ltd. has filed a preliminary response to Anker Innovations’ IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,048,696, arguing that the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that the cited prior art was already considered during prosecution. The owner seeks a denial of institution under § 325(d).
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 B2. The PTAB terminated the three related IPRs under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) after the parties filed a joint motion and settlement agreement.
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.