US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 117 of 291 · 8,722 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging GenghisComm’s ’786 patent covering OFDM spread‑spectrum methods. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks an IPR to invalidate 20 claims of CATL’s (Ningde Amperex) lithium‑ion battery electrode patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for the petitioner's IPR challenge against U.S. Patent 12,015,118 B2, covering lithium-ion battery electrode structures. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both anticipation (Ishigaki) and obviousness grounds over multiple prior art references.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Director granted review of an IPR decision, vacating the institution finding for one set of grounds (Ishigaki-based) because the Board introduced external evidence, but maintained institution for the remaining claims.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia have entered a covenant not to sue with Headwater, filing a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00404 covering LTE patent 9,413,502. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,178,104 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia settled their IPR with Headwater Partners over patent 9,413,502, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 11,178,104. The parties cite statutory authority to protect the agreement’s commercial details.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,178,104. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petition before a trial was instituted.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Headwater Partners' 9,413,502 patent covering backhaul routing, asserting that earlier patents Ishii and Sfar make the claims obvious. They also argue the Board should not deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM has filed an IPR petition challenging Croga’s 11,178,104 patent covering sandboxed network isolation, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson Inc. successfully petitioned to invalidate key claims of Headwater Partners II LLC's patent related to wireless backhaul systems. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable based on obviousness and anticipation over prior art (Ishii and Sfar).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung and Anonymous Media Research Holdings jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00558 before any institution decision, and the Board granted the termination to conserve resources.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics challenges a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards, relied on faulty facts, and violated due process.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent. The petition challenges the Board's reliance on "settled expectations" and alleged factual errors. A prior settlement with Meta is highlighted as a factor.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ 2015 ‘039 patent was denied. The Board affirmed the Director’s discretionary denial, citing strong settled expectations and procedural compliance.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ 2015 wireless patent was denied. The patent owner’s response emphasizes strong settled expectations and consistency with prior Director decisions, arguing that the discretionary denial is proper under 35 U.S.C. §314.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00535/00536, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent intact.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
VirtaMove successfully defended the Director's discretionary denial of institution for Google’s IPR, arguing statutory authority and rejecting judicial estoppel. The rehearing request was denied, leaving the IPR uninstated.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google seeks a rehearing of the PTAB Director’s decision denying institution of an IPR against VirtaMove’s 14‑year‑old patent, arguing the Director exceeded statutory authority and misapplied a "settled expectations" doctrine.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has requested Director Review of four IPRs against VirtaMove's software migration patent. The Patent Owner may respond within five business days with a limited brief and no new evidence.
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
Zepp Health and the University of Connecticut entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,278,647. The parties jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR before the Board made an institution decision.
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
Zepp Health and the University of Connecticut settled their IPR dispute over Patent 10,278,647 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, ending the proceeding before trial.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s petitions for review of the institution decisions in four IPRs involving VirtaMove’s patent, leaving the original denial of institution in place.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
The Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the institution decisions in four IPRs involving VirtaMove's patent, leaving the institution denials in place.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The PTAB Director denied Samsung Electronics' request for a Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00535, upholding the earlier decision that the patent was not instituted. The order confirms the institution denial for patent 9,032,039 B2 owned by Mobile Data Technologies.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google seeks rehearing of the PTAB Director's discretionary denial of institution for an IPR against VirtaMove's 14‑year‑old patent, arguing the Director exceeded statutory authority and violated the APA.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google’s request to rehear the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for VirtaMove’s migration patent was rejected. The Director relied on statutory authority and workload considerations to deny institution.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
The PTAB Director denied Google’s petitions for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs involving VirtaMove’s patent 7,519,814. No further substantive review of the patent’s validity was undertaken.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google’s request for rehearing of the USPTO’s discretionary denial of institution was rejected. The Patent Owner argues the Director acted within statutory authority under §§ 314 and 316, and that judicial estoppel does not apply to agency decisions.
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.