US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 119 of 188 · 5,620 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,175,148 and jointly filed a request to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and terminate the proceeding. The motion relies on statutory provisions for confidentiality of settlement agreements.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,175,148. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement documents as confidential, without deciding the merits.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all six claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,198, asserting that the MRAM‑related claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai and Soukup. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted given the ongoing district‑court litigation.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope petitions to invalidate Belden’s 11,740,423 patent covering modular fiber‑optic cassette trays, asserting that prior art references render all 30 claims obvious or anticipated.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
Cholla Energy and OBM have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against LANCIUM's 11,283,261 patent covering behind‑the‑meter flexible datacenters, arguing that all 16 claims are obvious over existing green‑energy datacenter literature.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Varia Holdings’ ’947 RFID patent, asserting that all 32 claims are obvious over prior‑art Bluetooth/RFID references. The petition seeks institution and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Varia’s RFID‑enabled mobile device patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the claims lack novelty and meet PTAB discretionary standards for institution.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International Industries has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 8,805,692, asserting that its wearable audio claims are obvious over prior art such as Jannard, Wittenberg, Relan, and Barnes. The petition argues that discretionary exclusions do not apply and requests the Board to institute the review.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon and other camera makers petition the PTAB to institute an IPR against Optimum Imaging’s in‑camera aberration‑correction patent, asserting that all claim elements are disclosed in earlier camera‑technology patents.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
BMW of North America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Foras Technologies’ fault‑tolerant multiprocessor patent. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of six prior‑art references and challenges the examiner’s earlier rejections. It also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon and co‑petitioners seek to invalidate Optimum Imaging’s ’805 patent covering in‑camera image filtration, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art such as Niikawa, Enomoto, Levien, and Yamasaki. The petition requests institution of an IPR and disputes any discretionary denial.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
BMW has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Foras Technologies’ fault‑tolerant multiprocessor patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over Fox, Safford, Arai and related references.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
The PTAB decided to institute PGR proceedings, finding that the Petitioner successfully overcame arguments of Examiner error regarding prior art combinations and claim construction issues. The dispute centers on fire-resistant wall assemblies and truss hangers, with the Board issuing preliminary determinations on key terms like 'planar extension plate' and 'bounding.'
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies' IPR petition against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 was denied by the PTAB, finding insufficient evidence of obviousness. The Board specifically rejected the argument that substituting CoFeB for Fe would be obvious based on prior art teachings regarding amorphous versus crystalline structures.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies' IPR challenge against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 regarding Magnetic Tunnel Junctions (MTJ) was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a sufficient motivation to combine prior art references, specifically rejecting arguments based on barrier height optimization.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of trial in this IPR concerning digital camera image processing and aberration correction. The Board found sufficient likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness arguments combining prior art references (Niikawa and Enomoto).
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
The PTAB found all 19 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on obviousness over prior art references (Willgert, Mooney, Holloway, Pitroda). The Board adopted the Petitioner's functional interpretation of 'RFID transponder data,' confirming that mobile devices can emulate RFID functionality without physical hardware limitations.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
The Board found all 16 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the subject matter was taught or suggested by combining Kiani, Pelio, Chapel, Belady, and Forestiero for various limitations. This final decision confirms the invalidity of the patent claims in the area of power management for datacenters.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims of the '781 patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that while prior art references describe processor swapping or task management, they fail to teach the specific transfer of the 'role' of boot processor during runtime as claimed.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle on a dispute involving U.S. Patent 10,873,685, and will seek dismissal of the case.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus and other camera makers settled their IPR dispute with Optimum Imaging Technologies and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board has not decided any merits, and the parties cite statutory authority for termination.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied Optimum Imaging’s request for rehearing of the institution decision in IPR2024-01220, keeping the review of the Olympus‑related lens‑correction patent alive. The Board found no abuse of discretion and rejected the discretionary denial argument under § 314(a).
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Fujifilm have reached a settlement-in-principle, seeking a stay of court deadlines and planning to file a stipulation of dismissal.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus and Optimum Imaging have reached a settlement-in-principle in their imaging patent dispute, seeking a stay of court deadlines and planning to dismiss the case.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus and other camera makers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading to the termination of four inter partes review proceedings covering patent 10,873,685. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in their Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus Corporation et al. filed an IPR challenging 30 claims related to image aberration correction, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies heavily on prior art from Iwasawa and various secondary references like Enomoto and Ito.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus Corporation et al. successfully navigated the institution phase in an IPR against Optimum Imaging Technologies, LLC regarding imaging systems technology. The Board preliminarily found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
Adobe’s IPR on patent 6,757,828 was instituted, with the Board finding claim 1 obvious over Rieger and accepting Adobe’s claim construction. The patent owner’s request for Director review was argued to lack merit.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
Adobe seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision for IPR2024‑01352, arguing the Board’s claim construction lacks evidentiary support and that the Fintiv discretionary factors were misapplied. The Patent Owner requests denial of institution.
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.