US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 111 of 286 · 8,574 total
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
DISH Technologies challenges the PTAB’s finding of obviousness for its adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied prior art and procedural rules. The patent owner seeks reversal of the final written decision or termination of the IPR.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied the petitioners' requests for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in two IPRs involving DISH Technologies' streaming patent, leaving the original decisions intact.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,077,991 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, and Microsoft petitioned an IPR on EyesMatch's facial‑recognition patent, but Samsung and EyesMatch have now settled and moved to terminate the proceeding.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
DISH Technologies seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found its adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent obvious. The Owner alleges procedural errors, improper theory shifting, and misinterpretation of the Leaning prior art.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 10,478,030. The parties filed a joint motion, and the PTAB terminated the proceeding, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00853 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties seek to end the proceeding.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Micron Technology’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in two IPRs concerning patent 10,937,806. The denial leaves the patent owner’s rights intact.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies have settled their IPR dispute and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on its 3D memory patent is contested. The Board found no error in rejecting Micron’s obviousness arguments based on Toyama, and the response urges denial of the review request.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior art was already considered and the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success, invoking discretionary denial factors.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues that Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art was already considered, the petition lacks merit, and discretionary factors favor denial given parallel district‑court litigation.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information under statutory confidentiality rules.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. and M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd. have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,806,554. An unopposed motion to terminate the proceeding has been filed, citing the settlement and judicial economy.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO denied fuboTV Media Inc.'s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in several IPRs against DISH Technologies patents.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,626,461 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and cites public‑policy benefits of settlement.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The parties filed a joint motion citing settlement and confidentiality concerns.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nokia's wireless‑network patent, so the institution stands.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia has filed a Director Review request asking the PTAB to vacate its decision to institute an IPR against Amazon's video‑coding patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied the POSITA standard and ignored the inventor's "skip coding mode" terminology.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon seeks director review of the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Nokia’s ‘808 patent covering a redefined skip coding mode in video encoders. Nokia argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards and ignored the patent’s explicit lexicography.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that claims 1–3,5,16–20,22,26–28,30 of U.S. Patent 10,469,554 are obvious over prior art (Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0) and thus unpatentable, while claims 4,7,8,10–14,23–25 remain valid.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied fuboTV’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00902 and related IPRs, leaving the original decisions intact.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that claims 1, 9, 11‑19, and 21 of DISH’s ’798 adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims survived.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement documents be kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00898 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’350 patent covering wood‑plastic composite technology.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2024-00898 concerning U.S. Patent 10,981,350. The motion reflects a settlement between the parties, ending the proceeding.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,873,685. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the PTAB granted the termination while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request to overturn a PTAB denial of institution for its wireless‑channel‑estimation patent, arguing procedural and substantive errors.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,362,480 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The motion cites early‑stage status and lack of a preliminary response as reasons for dismissal.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung rebuts Empire’s request to reinterpret the term “idle power consumption” and to overturn the Board’s obviousness findings. The Board’s construction aligns with the district court and expert testimony, and Empire’s isolated prior‑art attacks are insufficient.
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.