US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 118 of 188 · 5,620 total
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
Hand Held Products argues that TransCore's IPR petition fails because the cited Katz reference is not a printed publication and the petitioner’s reliance on Tolonen and Ishizu lacks the required particularity. The owner seeks denial of institution and invokes §325(d).
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a settlement that resolved all disputes over three patents. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia settled their inter partes review disputes over U.S. Patent 9,775,774, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia requests the USPTO Director to vacate the institution of an IPR against its dermatology device patent after the ITC upheld the patent’s validity, arguing the Board abused discretion and that the Fintiv factors favor denial.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The PTAB granted a settlement‑based termination for Jeisys Medical in three IPRs while allowing the proceedings to continue for EndyMed. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia have filed a joint request in IPR2024-00383 to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The parties seek to have the agreement treated as business confidential information and kept separate from the patent file.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
During an IPR hearing, Jeisys Medical announced a settlement with SHEnB and Cartessa respondents, seeking to suspend the schedule until November 20.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,775,774 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Court decision.
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00391 concerning U.S. Patent 8,141,784. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties request termination to conserve resources.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia have filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, separating it from the patent record.
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore LP challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,141,784 in the PTAB, asserting that the claims are unpatentable over prior art references Tolonen and Katz. The petitioner argues that the core features of the patent—such as EIR terminals connecting chipsets to baseband software—are anticipated or obvious based on these older technologies.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc. challenged Serendia, LLC's '774 patent in an IPR petition, asserting that claims are anticipated by Mehta and rendered obvious through combinations involving Na ’848 and Lee. The petition focuses on the unpatentability of medical device claims related to dermatological treatment/microneedling.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging claims 13 and 14 of Serendia's patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by the prior art reference Mehta. The case moves to trial phase after rejecting arguments for discretionary denial based on competitor relationships.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in PGR2024‑00050, finding claims 5 and 17 indefinite and lacking written description, and deeming claims 1‑12, 15‑17, and 21‑23 obvious over Gilb ’792 and Bundy. The Board granted a partial amendment for claim 32 while denying other proposed substitute claims.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
The PTAB found 103 of the 105 claims of Simpson Strong‑Tie’s fire‑wall hanger patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of Yamaguchi, Bundy, Adams and Gilb ’416 references. Claims 38 and 91 were left intact. The Board adopted petitioner‑proposed claim constructions.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
Simpson Strong‑Tie challenges Columbia Insurance’s post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 11,920,339 covering fire‑wall hanger systems. The patent owner’s sur‑reply argues the petition’s obviousness and written‑description attacks fail, emphasizing strong secondary‑consideration evidence. The case remains pending before the PTAB.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
Simpson Strong‑Tie and Columbia Insurance have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,920,339 and jointly filed a request to keep the settlement agreement confidential while moving to terminate the post‑grant review.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
Simpson Strong‑Tie and Columbia Insurance have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,920,339 and jointly moved to terminate the post‑grant review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under its authority to end settled cases.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
Simpson Strong‑Tie and Columbia Insurance reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review of patent 11,920,339. The Board granted the joint motion to keep the settlement confidential and end the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple filed a response defending the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑32 of Varia’s RFID‑enabled mobile device patent are obvious. The company argues the Board correctly relied on intrinsic record and prior art, not on the patent owner’s functional‑emulation arguments.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International Industries and CasesTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,805,692 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and requests confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding and treat the settlement agreement as confidential.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,805,692 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, seeking termination of the proceeding.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon and other camera manufacturers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,451,339 and related patents. The settlement agreement is confidential under statutory provisions.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement-in-principle in a Texas district court case involving U.S. Patent 7,612,805. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and will file a dismissal stipulation.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Olympus have reached a settlement-in-principle in the district court case tied to IPR2024-01373, requesting a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal. The agreement ends the PTAB challenge to patent 7,612,805.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Fujifilm have reached a settlement-in-principle in the district court case tied to IPR2024-01373, seeking a 60‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Varia Holdings seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found all 39 claims of its RFID‑emulation patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on a new, unsupported "functional emulation" theory introduced only in the Petitioner’s reply. The request argues this procedural error warrants reversal.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle in their Texas district court case, planning to dismiss the action after a 45‑day stay. The agreement ends the litigation over patent 8451339.
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.