US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 119 of 286 · 8,574 total
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate their inter partes review after reaching a settlement and filing a joint dismissal in district court.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKinetics filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317, citing competitive harm if disclosed. The Board has yet to rule on the request.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The PTAB issued an order granting Cala Health and EMKinetics' joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c), separating it from the IPR file.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that its dynamic ACL patent claims are obvious. The company alleges procedural violations and improper claim construction based on a late‑filed dictionary definition.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
Nearmap filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Pictometry’s aerial imaging patent. The petitioner claims the Board misapplied rules on claim‑chart format, expert declaration length, and claim construction. Nearmap seeks remand to a new panel to evaluate its obviousness and anticipation arguments.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The PTAB issued an order compelling Cala Health and EMKinetics to file a true copy of their settlement agreement before the joint motion to dismiss can be acted upon, emphasizing compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). A dissenting judge argues the rule does not apply pre‑institution.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
The PTAB denied Nearmap's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2024-00729, leaving the IPR uninstated.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight inter partes review proceedings covering wireless patents. The Board granted joint motions to terminate the IPRs and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung and EyesMatch have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §327 and related CFR rules.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
ZF Friedrichshafen, its affiliates, and Nissan have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to withdraw the IPR against Foras Technologies’ U.S. Patent 7,502,958.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron seeks a PTAB Director Review of Yangtze Memory’s patent (IPR2024-00794). The Director will decide on the request, and Yangtze may file a limited response within five business days.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. and AX Wireless have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate their inter partes review, citing a settlement and a joint dismissal stipulation. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR and to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions. The parties seek Board protection of the agreement from public disclosure.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied MediaTek’s request for rehearing of its earlier decision denying institution of an IPR against MOSAID’s power‑island patent. The Board found the petitioner’s arguments about plural sleep transistors and POSITA knowledge unsubstantiated.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,250,360, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review by joint motion. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
ZF Friedrichshafen, its affiliate, and Nissan have jointly moved to withdraw their IPR against Foras Technologies' vehicle safety patent, citing a settlement and early-stage status of the proceeding.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,898,014, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung, arguing the Board misapplied the Fintiv factors and relied on rescinded guidance. The petition seeks to deny institution and extend the filing deadline.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied MediaTek’s request for rehearing of its earlier decision denying institution of an IPR against MOSAID’s 9,350,349 patent covering power islands with plural sleep transistors. The Board found MediaTek’s arguments insufficient and no abuse of discretion.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has requested a Director Review of the IPR decision against Yangtze Memory Technologies. The Patent Owner has five business days to file a concise response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation has filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s denial to institute an IPR on Delta Electronics’ 10,877,534 patent covering stacked power converters. The petitioner contends the Board relied on unsupported expert testimony contrary to prior art.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation filed a Director Review request after the USPTO denied its institution petition in IPR2024-00715, arguing the Board should have considered the patent owner's expert testimony despite lacking documentary support.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.
Nearmap requests Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Eagle View’s geo‑temporal property‑database patent. The petitioner claims the Board misapplied procedural rules, penalized its claim‑chart format and expert declaration length, and ignored substantive prior‑art mappings.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet seek a Director Review of a PTAB decision upholding InfoExpress’s network‑authentication patent. They contend the Board improperly allowed incorporation‑by‑reference arguments, violating USPTO rules and prejudicing the challengers. The petition asks the Director to vacate and remand the decision.
Intersect ENT, Inc. et al. v.New Amsterdam, LLC
Intersect ENT and New Amsterdam settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,916,483, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
WellcomeMat seeks Director Review of a Board decision that declared its video‑editing cue‑point patent invalid. The Owner contends the Board misapplied legal standards on anticipation, obviousness, and claim construction.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against WellcomeMat’s 8,307,286 patent covering video cue‑point processing for online real‑estate videos. Petitioner Aylo Freesites showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim, and the Board rejected discretionary denial arguments.
LinkedIn Corporation v.Intent IQ, LLC
LinkedIn and Intent IQ settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,715,878 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
Aylo Freesites Ltd responded to WellcomeMat’s Director Review request, arguing the Board correctly found claims 13‑15 and 17‑20 of the ’286 patent unpatentable based on proper prior‑art comparison. The Board’s analysis of the video‑editing environment claim term was upheld, and the request for review should be denied.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,294,403 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
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.