US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 112 of 291 · 8,722 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the USPTO’s discretionary denial of institution for patent 11,503,144. The petition argues the denial relied on mistaken facts, misapplied Fintiv factors, and violated procedural due‑process rules.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Keyless Licensing defends the PTAB’s denial of institution for Samsung’s IPR, emphasizing proper application of Fintiv factors and the lack of a statutory right to a review. The board’s discretionary denial stands, and the Director Review request is urged to be denied.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a USPTO denial of institution for 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, violating the APA and due‑process rights.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a denied institution was rejected. The Board upheld the discretionary denial, citing Fintiv factors and the lack of a statutory right to an IPR.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Micron successfully opposes Yangtze Memory’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision denying institution of an IPR on its 3D NAND patent. The Board finds Yangtze’s arguments unsubstantiated and denies the review.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Micron opposes Yangtze Memory’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on a 3D NAND patent. The response argues the petitioner offers no statutory grounds, misstates parallel litigation, and has waived procedural challenges.
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 IPRs involving Keyless Licensing’s patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,976,922. The Board affirmed the earlier denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑5 and 7‑20 of Keyless Licensing’s ’144 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bast, Wedel, Benoit and Jambhekar.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging Stratasys' 3D‑printer configuration patent (US 11,886,774), asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
REC Solar Holdings AS et al. v.Maxeon Solar PTE. Ltd.
REC Solar Holdings has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 9‑20 of Maxeon’s 8,878,053 solar‑cell patent, asserting obviousness over prior art such as Froitzheim, Gan, Kwark and related publications.
Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
Samsara has filed an IPR petition challenging Motive Technologies’ camera‑calibration patent, arguing that six grounds of obviousness under §103 render claims 1‑7 unpatentable.
REC Solar Holdings AS et al. v.Maxeon Solar PTE. Ltd.
REC Solar seeks cancellation of claims 9‑12 of Maxeon’s 8,222,516 solar‑cell patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier PTAB rulings.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Smart RF’s 8,078,561 patent covering digital predistortion, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art publications.
REC Solar Holdings AS et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
REC Solar seeks to cancel claims 10‑15 of Maxeon’s 315 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art back‑contact solar cell teachings. The petition cites multiple references and asserts discretionary denial does not apply.
REC Solar Holdings AS et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
REC Solar seeks cancellation of claims 16 and 19 of Maxeon's 2022 solar‑cell patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering back‑contact cell design and impurity gettering.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Keyless Licensing’s ’144 patent covering buttonless touchscreen phones, asserting obviousness over Pensjo and related references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Keyless Licensing’s ’602 patent covering edge‑gesture UI elements, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art such as Tseng and Jeong.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Keyless Licensing’s ’922 patent, arguing that all 21 claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack proper priority.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, citing anticipation by Lung and obviousness over Park, Fukuzumi, and Mokhlesi. The petitioner argues discretionary denial does not apply and seeks cancellation of claims 8, 13, and 21.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate Micron’s 3D NAND patent (U.S. 8,803,214) on anticipation and obviousness grounds, citing Kang, Fukuzumi and Ahn references. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and seeks institution of review.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Stratasys, Inc.'s patent 11886774. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding Claim 1 based on the combination of prior art references Douglas and Mark.
Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsara Inc. against Motive Technologies, Inc., challenging 7 claims in patent 11875580. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on claim 1 based on prior art combinations.
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 institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,373,974. The denial leaves the original institution denials, which refused to institute the trials, in effect.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Micron’s 3D NAND patent. The petitioner contends the Board relied improperly on a “settled expectations” factor and violated procedural rules. The request aims to overturn the denial and move the case forward.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung and Sinotechnix have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,951,626 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, so the motion is pending.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung and Sinotechnix settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,951,626. The Board terminated the proceeding before trial was instituted and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Micron's 3D NAND patent, arguing that all challenged claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art by Lee, Freeman, and Lim. The petition also asserts that discretionary denial does not apply.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of six claims of the ’626 LED patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over five prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Genzyme’s ’880 AAV detection patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition details how each claim is taught by combinations of those references and argues that secondary considerations are irrelevant.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Genzyme’s ’313 patent covering AAV detection methods. The petition asserts obviousness over four pre‑grant publications describing LC‑MS and RP‑HPLC techniques for viral proteins.
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.