US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 111 of 291 · 8,722 total
OtterBox v.SafeTray Products Ltd.
Otter Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SafeTray’s ’691 patent covering tablet‑grip devices, arguing the invention was well known and obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to review OS‑New Horizon’s U.S. Pat. 8,401,875 covering multi‑biometric authentication in handheld devices, asserting that a combination of prior‑art references renders the asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
A bankruptcy court approved a settlement between ISE Professional Testing & Consulting Services and Synogen Management Group, releasing all claims and assigning a non‑mammalian biotech patent portfolio. The agreement satisfies statutory settlement factors and includes cash payments and patent assignments.
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science filed a bankruptcy motion to approve a settlement with Synogen and Nextgen Biologics that transfers ownership of a non‑mammalian tissue‑engineering patent portfolio. The settlement includes patent assignments, cash consideration, and mutual releases, aiming to end all related disputes.
RegenX Science Inc. v.NeXtGen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science and NeXtGen Biologics reached a settlement in a Chapter 11 case, assigning a non‑mammalian patent portfolio and providing cash consideration. The agreement releases all claims and dismisses related litigation, aiming to preserve estate value and satisfy creditors.
RegenX Science Inc. v.NeXtGen Biologics, Inc.
Bankruptcy court approved a settlement between ISE and Synogen parties, including patent assignments and cash payments, leading to dismissal of related disputes.
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 32 claims of Nextgen Biologics’ tissue‑engineered graft patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art ECM references.
RegenX Science Inc. v.NeXtGen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 30 claims of NeXtGen’s 2023 patent covering axolotl‑derived extracellular matrix scaffolds, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group petitions the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of Optronic Sciences’ 8,604,471 OLED display patent, arguing obviousness over Hwang and combinations with Godo and Yamashita. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Edge Networking's distributed software‑defined networking patent. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over the Vasell patent combined with OSGi‑related references. It also contends that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition against Edge Networking’s ’095 patent covering distributed software‑defined networking. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Vasell and related OSGi literature and opposes discretionary denial.
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Edge Networking’s distributed software‑defined networking patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Vasell patent combined with OSGi‑related references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Edge Networking Systems, LLC. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims based on obviousness grounds (102 and 103).
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
The PTAB denied Microsoft's Inter Partes Review against Edge Networking Systems, LLC. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence showing how prior art teaches or suggests the required 'sandboxing operating system.'
Microsoft Corporation v.Edge Networking Systems, LLC
Microsoft Corporation's attempt to invalidate Edge Networking Systems' patent (10893095) regarding Software Defined Networks was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Microsoft failed to adequately demonstrate obviousness over prior art, specifically concerning 'sandboxing operating system' principles.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied a petition for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00611, which upheld Stratasys’s 3D‑printing patent. The denial applies to three related IPRs as well.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks denial of Stratasys' Director Review request, arguing the PTAB’s referral decision correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that a broad stipulation eliminates any need for duplicate litigation. The petition emphasizes that incorporation‑by‑reference arguments are irrelevant to institution.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys seeks Director Review to vacate the Referral and Institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent, arguing the PTAB proceeding duplicates a pending Texas court trial and ignores key Fintiv factors. The request cites procedural errors and improper stipulations by the petitioner.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys has requested a Director Review in IPR2025-00611 concerning its 3D‑printing patent 11886774. The petitioner must file a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence may be submitted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Keyless Licensing defends the PTAB’s denial of institution for Samsung’s IPR, arguing the Board correctly applied Fintiv factors and that Samsung lacks a right to an IPR. The patent owner also asserts the Acting Director’s discretionary denial was lawful.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four related IPRs concerning Keyless Licensing's patent. The Board found no basis to overturn the prior institution denials.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025‑00526 and related cases, leaving the original denial of institution in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Keyless Licensing defends the PTAB’s denial of institution for Samsung’s IPR, arguing the Board correctly applied Fintiv factors and discretionary denial authority. The response rejects Samsung’s due‑process and procedural challenges.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR against Keyless Licensing’s patent. The petition argues the Director relied on faulty facts about parallel litigation, that a broad Sotera‑style stipulation should preclude denial, and that the USPTO’s retroactive policy changes violate the APA and due‑process.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Micron’s 3D NAND flash patent. The petitioner argues the Board improperly relied on ‘settled expectations’ and applied new PTO guidance retroactively. The request challenges the discretionary denial under §314(a).
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Yangtze Memory's request for Director Review of the denial to institute several IPRs against Micron's memory patents. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Yangtze Memory Technologies’ request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of IPR2025-00498 (patent 8,803,214). The denial also applies to three related IPRs covering the same patent.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of IPRs against Micron’s flash‑memory patents, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations analysis and violated APA due‑process rules.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR against Keyless Licensing. The petition argues the Director misapplied the Fintiv factors, relied on erroneous facts, and retroactively applied new discretionary denial policies in violation of the APA and due‑process rights.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute several IPRs against Keyless Licensing’s patent. The order applies to four related IPRs and leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
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.