US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 118 of 286 · 8,574 total
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,425,817, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The PTAB issued an order in IPR2024‑00732 and IPR2024‑00743 requiring Cala Health and EMKinetics to file a true copy of their settlement agreement before the proceedings can be terminated.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKinetics jointly moved to dismiss IPR2024‑00743 covering claims 1‑17 of U.S. Patent 11,628,300. The parties cite a confidential settlement and the early, pre‑institution stage of the proceeding as reasons for dismissal.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group and SitePro settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,726,504 B2 before the IPR was instituted, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Micron Technology’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00790, leaving the prior decision on patent 10,868,031 intact.
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
The PTAB held that six of the challenged claims of Samsung Display’s ’593 OLED driver patent are obvious over the Tobita reference, while the remaining claims were upheld.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Nokia’s U.S. Patent 8,050,321. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreements as confidential business information.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless have jointly moved to terminate IPR 2024-00686 after reaching a settlement, citing 35 U.S.C. § 317. The Board previously denied a termination request, but the parties submitted a renewed motion.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination saves resources and promotes settlement policy.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled their dispute, leading to the termination of eight inter partes review proceedings covering patents on wireless networking. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight inter partes review proceedings before they were instituted. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Disney challenges the Patent Owner’s request for Director Review, asserting that the Board’s claim constructions and prior‑art analysis were correct. The response contends the request adds no new arguments and should be denied.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The patent owner has asked the PTAB Director to review the IPR, and the petitioner must respond within five business days with a limited brief. No new evidence is allowed.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
The USPTO denied Micron Technology’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00791 (and the related IPR2024-00911). The order contains no substantive patentability findings.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Digital Media Technology Holdings seeks a 30‑day extension to file a Director Review request after the PTAB’s final decision on its U.S. Patent 7,574,725, citing good cause due to counsel’s age and heavy workload.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00685 concerning AX Wireless's patent 10,079,707 after reaching a settlement and filing a joint stipulation for dismissal in federal court.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
The IPR was terminated after the parties settled following institution.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 10,079,707, citing a settlement and the Board’s lack of merit decision. The motion invokes 35 U.S.C. §317 and requests confidentiality for the settlement documents.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR over Proxense’s Bluetooth proximity patent.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota and Kia’s attempt to obtain Director review of an IPR against Emerging Automotive was rejected. The Board held the request unauthorized under 37 C.F.R. §42.75(c) and affirmed its earlier denial of institution. The brief also urges denial of other pending IPRs between the parties.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung seeks Director review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision finding Maxell’s claims unpatentable, arguing the Board ignored Samsung’s narrow “character” construction used in a district‑court jury trial. The Board denied the request, leaving the unpatentability findings in place.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s home‑networking patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards and ignored key Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell challenges the PTAB’s decision to institute Samsung’s IPR over its video‑management patent, alleging procedural abuse and improper burden shifting. The request seeks Director review to overturn the institution.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate IPR 2024-00682 after reaching a settlement and filing a joint stipulation for dismissal in the Eastern District of Texas.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled the IPR challenge to U.S. Patent 10,327,607 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate IPR 2024-00680 concerning patent 9,614,566 after reaching a settlement, filing a joint stipulation for dismissal in the Eastern District of Texas.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
Daingean Technologies Ltd. opposes AT&T and other petitioners’ IPR request on U.S. Patent 11,196,509, asserting that the cited Lee and Zheng references fail to teach the patent’s specific code‑block sizing and grouping features, and that the petition relies on hindsight.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,327,607 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review by joint motion.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,327,607 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
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.