US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 116 of 291 · 8,722 total
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB found claims 1‑6, 8‑10, 15‑16 of the ’395 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) due to anticipation by Grupp ’483, while claims 11, 12 and 14 remain valid.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that claims 1‑4, 13, 20, 22 and 25 of the ’691 patent are anticipated by Grupp ’483 and thus unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims were not found unpatentable.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries and patent owner Oak IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01052 after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties argue termination is appropriate under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SoundClear’s 9,031,259 patent, alleging that the claimed speech‑processing system is obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition lists 15 grounds covering VAD, DOA, adaptive filtering and microphone‑array arrangements.
United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
United Microelectronics Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate five claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s 7,579,227 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness based on multiple high‑k gate dielectric references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Quicker Connections LLC
Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Quicker Connections’ U.S. Patent 7,061,859 covering fault‑protection methods in bidirectional ring networks. The petition relies on the Japanese Omichi publication as obviousness prior art and argues that a discretionary denial would be improper given related litigation.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of a video‑compression patent owned by Advanced Coding Technologies, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial of the request.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries has filed an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of Oak IP’s ’691 patent covering metal‑semiconductor junctions. The petition relies on U.S. Patent No. 7,176,483 for anticipation and on a combination of that patent with U.S. Patent No. 7,727,882 for obviousness, while also raising written‑description and enablement issues.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of its IPR challenge against Telcom Ventures, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution decision.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple’s petition led the PTAB to institute an inter partes review of Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent covering massive‑MIMO beam recovery. The board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Xia and a Xia‑Jover combination. No final patentability decision has been made yet.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple successfully obtained a PTAB institution of an IPR against Apex Beam’s massive‑MIMO patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑20 based on Liu and Jover references and declined discretionary denial despite related district court suits.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a confidential settlement that led to the joint termination of sixteen inter partes review proceedings covering Apex Beam’s patents. The Board granted the joint motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00895 covering U.S. Patent 10,568,113. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement documents confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent, finding Samsung has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim based on obviousness over Xia and Xia + Jover.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent (U.S. 11,626,904). The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent covering UE beam‑failure recovery. Samsung (as petitioner) showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on an obviousness ground under §103 using Liu and Jover. The Board declined discretionary denial despite related district‑court suits.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering a wireless communication patent (U.S. 10,568,113). The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
NXP Semiconductors N .V. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
NXP Semiconductors has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s ’886 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Okashita, Yu, and Burgener references.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 5G beam‑failure‑recovery patent, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier Liu and Jover disclosures. The petition requests the PTAB to institute review and cancel the patent.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple files an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 11,626,904 patent on multi‑antenna transmission, asserting obviousness over Liu, Park, and Ng references.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s ’904 patent covering multi‑antenna transmission. The petitioner asserts the claims are obvious over the Kim and Chen disclosures and seeks institution of the review.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Apex Beam’s U.S. Patent 10,568,113 covering LTE beam‑failure recovery. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over Xia, Jover, 3GPP‑LTE and Yi references under §103 and requests institution of the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of VB Assets' ’699 patent covering conversational AI. The challenger relies on five pre‑2022 publications to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’172 patent covering NFC‑based smartphone payments, asserting obviousness over Jain and Dua publications and arguing against discretionary denial.
Tesla Inc. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Granite Vehicle Ventures’ autonomous‑driving safety patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition lists eleven grounds of obviousness covering the full claim set. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Apex Beam, challenging 20 claims related to multi-antenna transmission in wireless systems. The Board found that Apple met the reasonable likelihood standard based on prior art references Kim and Chen.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent 10,568,113, challenging claims based on obviousness over prior art including Xia and Jover.
NXP Semiconductors N .V. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung and NXP successfully invalidated a large portion of Harbor Island Dynamic's patent portfolio in the IPR proceeding. The Board found multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) using prior art references like Yu, Okashita, and Burgener. This final decision significantly weakens the patent owner’s position in semiconductor device technology.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR on Ningde Amperex’s lithium‑ion battery patent. The petitioner argues procedural errors, improper reliance on new evidence, and misinterpretation of prior‑art compaction‑density disclosures. It also urges denial based on parallel district‑court challenges.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery opposes Ningde Amperex’s request for Director Review, arguing the PTAB’s institution decision was proper and that no reversible error exists. The petition cites multiple prior‑art references that render all claims likely unpatentable.
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.