US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 115 of 286 · 8,574 total
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
Micron Technology petitions the PTAB Director to review a final written decision that upheld Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND flash patent claims. Micron contends the Board erred on obviousness grounds by demanding bodily incorporation, ignoring reply‑stage evidence, and misapplying anticipation standards. The request seeks reversal or vacatur of the decision.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that claim 4 of its 3‑D NAND patent remains unpatentable. The petition argues the Board misapplied obviousness law, ignoring KSR precedent and the known‑substitute teaching of Kim and Tessariol.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Certificate of Service for the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00863 concerning patent 11,663,031.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, and Microsoft settled their IPR challenge to EyesMatch’s ’109 patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics and Natera have filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks limited disclosure and asserts no filing fee is due.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking Section 317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the public patent file.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over DexCom’s glucose‑monitoring patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
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.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics and Natera have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,519,035 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided on institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology has filed a Director Review request in IPR2024‑00896. Samsung has five business days to submit a limited response, with no new evidence allowed.
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One filed an unopposed motion to keep their settlement agreement with Implicit confidential and to terminate the IPR. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch settled the IPR over patent 8,982,110 B2, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding and seal the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,478,030 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board is asked to end the proceeding.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,709,364 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before any merits were decided. The settlement agreement was also designated as confidential business information.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Apple was granted a PTAB order instituting inter partes review of all 20 claims of the ‘289 patent and joining the ongoing Google IPR. The Board found the petition identical to the earlier Google filing and approved joinder without adding new grounds.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom jointly filed a request to have their settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs involving Maxell patents, including patent 8,982,086. The denial leaves the PTAB's original rulings unchanged.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00847, leaving the institution of Nokia's patent 7,532,808 in place.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota and Kia seek Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of their IPR against Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑unlocking patent, arguing the Board abused discretion by using its own delay in the Fintiv analysis.
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,480,836, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,646,042 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding on grounds of settlement and judicial economy.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko and US Conec jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement confidential and to withdraw the IPR petition, effectively ending the dispute over patent 11,385,415.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑00797 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement covering the ’222 patent.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR proceeding.
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 NAND patent was denied. The Board affirmed that Micron failed to meet the burden of proving obviousness or motivation to combine prior art references.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,385,415 and jointly moved to withdraw the IPR, seeking full termination of the proceeding.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,679,289 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion stresses settlement, early‑stage status, and judicial economy.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00777, leaving the institution of Maxell's patent 11,017,815 B2 in place.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR. The parties rely on 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related CFR rules to limit public disclosure.
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.