US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 116 of 188 · 5,620 total
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 11 challenged claims unpatentable over various prior art combinations. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining Richardson's jump starter apparatus with Zhao's USB step-up charging technology, and through other combinations involving Epower/Krieger references.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications challenges Iarnach Technologies' 9,287,982 patent covering DOCSIS‑based EPON provisioning. The patent owner argues the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of invalidity and invokes Fintiv factors to seek a discretionary denial of institution.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications’ IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies’ 9,287,982 patent was deemed insufficient. The Patent Owner’s response argues the petitioner ignored the limiting preamble and failed to provide particularized obviousness arguments.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Declaration of Kerry Litvin submitted by Iarnach Technologies in response to Charter Communications' IPR petition.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s institution of several IPRs against Motorola Solutions, alleging misapplication of the Fintiv discretionary factors. The petition seeks reversal of the institution decisions under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding and related entities filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petition after reaching a settlement with Intercurrency Software, arguing that the case should be dismissed before any merits are decided.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its IPRs on body‑worn and in‑car camera patents, arguing that the PTAB must honor prior guidance that bars discretionary denial when a Sotera stipulation exists. The petitioner stresses national‑security stakes and the extensive resources invested in challenging all 160 claims.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB sent an email notifying the parties that the patent owner has filed Director Review requests for IPR2024‑01284, ‑01285, ‑01313 and ‑01314. The petitioner may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,986,585 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy supports termination after settlement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing filed a joint request with the PTAB to have their settlement materials treated as business‑confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). The request seeks to keep the settlement separate from the public file and limit access to government agencies or parties showing good cause.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding and related crypto trading entities settled their IPR disputes with Intercurrency Software. The Board granted a motion to withdraw the petitions and terminated the proceedings, treating the settlement as confidential.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications' IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies' DOCSIS auto‑configuration patent is challenged by the patent owner, who argues the petitioner's reply adds new, undisclosed arguments, violating the IPR rules. The patent owner seeks dismissal of the new arguments and confirmation of the patent's validity.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,661 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung and Cerence jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01267 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement as confidential and ending the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung and Cerence have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,026,428 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding while requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics and Cerence have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,026,428 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues that termination aligns with public policy and resource efficiency.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and K. Mizra settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,111,608. The Board terminated the proceeding without deciding the merits, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and patent owner K. Mizra filed a joint request to dismiss their IPR and keep the dismissal agreement confidential. The Board was asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information under §317(b).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and ASUS settled their inter partes review disputes over patent 10,986,585, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before trial. The settlement documents were ordered kept confidential.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Omachron’s hand‑vacuum patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition emphasizes that the claimed features are well‑known and combinable.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of U.S. Patent 8,942,378, which covers multicast encryption in passive optical networks. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art including Murakami, RFC 1112, RFC 4601, and the Yen patent application, and challenges discretionary denial arguments.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc. challenges K. Mizra LLC's '608 Patent in an IPR proceeding regarding DDR DRAM memory controllers and timing calibration. The petitioner asserts that the patent claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Johnson, Stubbs, Moss, and Liou.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Charter Communications filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of Touchstream Technologies' '751 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references (Danciu/Mahajan/Calvert and Aldrey/Mahajan) teach all elements of the claimed media playback features. This challenges the validity of key patents in the wireless communications space.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB instituted the IPR for Charter Communications against Iarnach Technologies, finding sufficient evidence that claims of Patent No. 9287982 are obvious over various prior art references (Bernstein, Tsuge, MEF 6.1). The Board addressed numerous claim construction issues, confirming some preambles were limiting while others were not.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications, Inc. failed to invalidate 13 claims covering Passive Optical Networks (PON) and multicast encryption technologies before the PTAB. The Board denied institution based on insufficient evidence showing obviousness over prior art including RFCs and Murakami.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director of the USPTO denied institution for several IPRs involving Motorola and Stellar, vacating prior Board decisions. The denial was based on changes in circumstances regarding related proceedings and the applicability of new guidance.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned the PTAB for institution of IPR against Stellar, LLC's patent (8310540), challenging all 19 claims based on obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that combining prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore would render the claimed features unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics challenged Cerence Operating Company’s patentability over handwriting recognition and text input features, arguing obviousness using prior art from Arai and Fenwick. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims, advancing the IPR challenge.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc.'s petition against K. Mizra LLC was instituted by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding multiple claims related to DRAM interface circuitry, proceeding toward a full trial.
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.