US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 108 of 188 · 5,620 total
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and filed a joint request to treat the settlement documents as confidential. The parties seek termination of the proceeding while keeping the settlement details out of the public record.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Court decision.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,020,031 B1. The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google successfully opposed EyesMatch’s Director Review request, arguing consistent position and lack of procedural error. The Board denied the request, leaving the patent’s claims unaltered.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00810 concerning EyesMatch’s eye‑recognition patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung and EyesMatch settled the IPR over patent 8,982,110, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding for Samsung and seal the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung and EyesMatch have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §327 and related CFR rules.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia's '808 patent, asserting that its skip coding mode is obvious over existing prior art references. The challenge focuses on whether combining zero-motion vector (ZMV) and non-zero motion vector (PNZMV) modes constitutes a predictable combination of known techniques in video compression. This dispute involves complex technical arguments regarding standard-setting technologies.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully secured institutional status in an IPR against DexCom, Inc., regarding continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Board found sufficient evidence that prior art references anticipate or render obvious key claims related to transcutaneous sensors and drift profiles.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Board adopted the District Court's construction of 'mirror tracking mode,' which requires the user to see a reversed reflection at roughly double the distance while maintaining constant size. This decision involved complex obviousness arguments regarding adaptive transformation mapping.
BTL Industries, Inc. v.InMode Ltd.
ThermiGen settled its patent infringement lawsuit with Viveve Medical, securing a non‑exclusive license and agreeing to pay royalties. The settlement resolves the 2016 litigation and allows Thermi to continue developing its temperature‑controlled RF platforms for women's intimate health.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments’ request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in several IPRs involving Greenthread’s patent 10,734,481. The Board found no basis to overturn the earlier rulings.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments challenges the validity of a patent covering CMOS device fabrication methods on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petition asserts that the claimed graded dopant structures are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art combinations, including Kawagoe and Wieczorek.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments Incorporated filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195 regarding CMOS fabrication/doping profiles. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or obvious based on numerous prior art references including Onoda and Payne. This challenges the patent's validity in semiconductor device technology.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The Director granted review in multiple IPRs involving Texas Instruments and Greenthread, vacating the FWDs. The cases are remanded to allow discovery on privity issues across related proceedings.
BTL Industries, Inc. v.InMode Ltd.
BTL Industries successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against InMode Ltd.'s medical device patent (8961511). The Board adopted a specialized skill level for the POSA and preliminarily constructed key terms related to RF energy application in gynecological tissue.
BTL Industries, Inc. v.InMode Ltd.
The PTAB issued a final written decision rejecting all 58 claims of the patent owner's application. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof regarding obviousness over combinations of prior art references (Edwards, Mosher, Ingle, Ollivier).
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron seeks to invalidate five claims of Netlist’s memory‑module patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Osanai, Tokuhiro, and Takefman references, and requests the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 patent, leading the PTAB to find all 20 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art memory‑module techniques.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held claims 1, 10‑13, and 21 of Netlist’s ’035 memory‑module patent unpatentable as obvious over Osanai and Tokuhiro, while claims 2, 6, and 22 remained valid.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Netlist’s ’608 patent. The petitioner asserts the Board missed critical explanations of how the Osanai reference satisfies the claimed data‑path and delay‑circuit limitations.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Micron's request for rehearing of its petition to institute an IPR against Netlist's memory‑controller patent, finding that Micron introduced arguments not present in the original petition.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron has filed a petition for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to join Samsung’s IPR against Netlist’s memory‑module patent. The request centers on the inapplicability of General Plastic factors to me‑too joinder petitions.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter‑partes review of Netlist’s ’608 memory‑module patent on claims 1‑5 after Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under obviousness.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Netlist’s memory‑interface patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied General Plastic discretionary denial factors to a me‑too petition.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Micron's request for Director Review of the decision that had previously denied institution of its IPR against Netlist's patent. The original institution denial therefore stands.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron’s petition to invalidate Netlist’s memory‑module patent was denied by the PTAB because the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the five challenged claims.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron Technology filed a Petition challenging 10268608's claims on grounds of obviousness (103). The petition asserts that the claimed memory module features are anticipated by combinations of prior art, including Hiraishi, Butt, Tokuhiro, Ellsberry, and Kim.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Micron's petition to join the Samsung IPR, ruling that the challenges were substantively identical to existing filings. The Board applied General Plastic factors, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing and denying institution based on prior filing history and potential road-mapping concerns.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Procter & Gamble has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s finding that all claims of its aluminum‑free deodorant patent are obvious. The company argues the Board misinterpreted the hardness test and failed to show a proper motivation to combine disparate prior art. It also raises a procedural defect regarding real‑party identification.
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.