US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 113 of 286 · 8,574 total
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, Microsoft and EyesMatch have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00856 and keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory and regulatory provisions.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00859 under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) after reaching a confidential settlement and patent license agreement.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR after reaching a settlement with EyesMatch. The Board granted the motion and sealed the settlement agreement, ending Samsung's participation in the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung challenged EyesMatch’s AR‑mirror patent in an IPR. The PTAB instituted the review, and EyesMatch’s response argues that none of the cited references disclose the claim limitations under the narrow construction obtained in the district court.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB Director denied the petitioners’ request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving ASUS patents. The denial leaves the original institution denials in place.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
Samsung Display’s IPR petition challenging Pictiva’s display patent was denied after the Director affirmed the Board’s discretionary denial of institution, leaving the patent intact.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 1, 6‑9, 12, and 17‑20 of ParkerVision’s ’108 patent are unpatentable. Petitioner proved obviousness over Downey, Sedra, and Hahnel, and the Board rejected the Patent Owner’s claim‑term construction for “switch.”
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google and Samsung challenged EyesMatch’s digital‑mirror patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR, and EyesMatch’s response argues that the cited references fail to meet the narrow claim construction obtained in district court, rendering all grounds unpatentable.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,478,030 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,194,039, and they have jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung challenges Maxell’s touch‑screen registration patent, defending the PTAB’s claim construction and obviousness findings while urging the Director to deny the review request as untimely.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
Samsung Electronics and Redstone Logics settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,253,925 before a trial was instituted. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its touchscreen‑gesture patent after Samsung’s challenge. The owner contends the Board misapplied the Advanced Bionics framework under §325(d), improperly shifting burdens and ignoring prior reexamination findings.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks director review of a PTAB final written decision that found all challenged claims of its fingerprint‑registration patent unpatentable. The patent owner argues the Board’s claim construction and obviousness analysis are erroneous and that the IPR should never have been instituted under §325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the cited prior art was already considered in reexamination and that no material examiner error exists. The response also cites discretionary denial factors under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO Director denied FuboTV’s request for a Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00917, keeping the decision that upheld DISH Technologies’ patent.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The USPTO denied BOE Technology’s request for a Director Review of the institution denial of its challenge to U.S. Patent 7,502,079, keeping the original denial in place.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their inter partes review of Nokia’s 7,532,808 patent. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, treating the settlement agreements as confidential. No merits were decided.
HL Klemove Corporation v.Foras Technologies Limited
HL Klemove and Foras Technologies have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 7,502,958, citing settlement and the lack of any merits decision. The Board is expected to grant the motion under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics filed an IPR challenging Natera's prenatal‑testing patent. The parties settled before the Board could institute the trial, and the Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
EyesMatch Ltd. seeks Director review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found all claims of its imaging patent unpatentable. The Patent Owner contends Samsung and Google introduced new arguments and prior art in a reply, violating IPR rules and inconsistent claim constructions. The request asks the Director to reverse the decision.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon seeks a Director Review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against Nokia’s 7,532,808 patent covering a novel skip coding mode in video encoders. Nokia argues the Board’s obviousness findings are unsupported and misinterpret the patent’s terminology.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Certificate of service for the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00865 concerning patent 11,693,685.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Micron's challenge to Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over the Toyama reference.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00233 concerning Patent 8,886,954. The Board found no merit to overturn the prior ruling.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung Electronics and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,982,110 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia jointly moved to terminate four inter partes reviews after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their IPR dispute over a RF connector patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.
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.