US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 120 of 286 · 8,574 total
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that allowed InfoExpress’s network‑security patent to survive. They argue the Board improperly accepted arguments incorporated by reference, violating USPTO rules.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,212,146. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate the IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
LinkedIn Corporation v.Intent IQ, LLC
LinkedIn and patent holder Intent IQ (AlmondNet) reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,715,878, prompting a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The PTAB initiated a sua sponte Director review of several IPRs involving TikTok and Cellspin Soft, staying the cases while it re‑examines institution decisions tied to RPI and sovereign‑entity arguments.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
InfoExpress defends its NAC patent against Cisco and Fortinet’s Director Review request, asserting the Board already properly evaluated all evidence and that the challengers’ new arguments are untimely. The patent owner seeks denial of the request.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Cisco settled their IPR dispute with Cobblestone Wireless, filing the settlement as confidential and requesting termination of the proceeding.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB refused to institute an IPR against Delta Electronics’ power‑converter patent. The petition argues that petitioners should be allowed to rely on the patent owner’s infringement claim constructions, even if they disagree with them, citing a split among PTAB panels.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
The USPTO denied Vicor Corporation's request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of IPR2024-00704 concerning Delta Electronics' patent 8,711,580. No further substantive rulings on claim patentability were made.
BTL Industries, Inc. v.InMode Ltd.
ThermiGen settled its patent infringement lawsuit with Viveve Medical, securing a non‑exclusive license and agreeing to pay royalties. The settlement resolves the 2016 litigation and allows Thermi to continue developing its temperature‑controlled RF platforms for women's intimate health.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok challenged a patent owner’s motion to terminate several IPRs over alleged failures to disclose a foreign party‑in‑interest and person‑eligibility issues. The PTAB denied the motion and initiated a sua sponte Director review, staying the IPRs pending further analysis.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR, contending the denial was improper because it hinged on the patent owner’s claim construction.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, seeking business‑confidential treatment separate from the public patent file.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Delta Faucet’s patent on an illuminated faucet system survives the PTAB’s review, with the Board affirming the patentability of claims 10 and 19 over the cited prior art. The Patent Owner’s response urges the Director to deny Kohler’s request for review, emphasizing the conclusory nature of Kohler’s expert testimony.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00748 concerning Patent 8,015,006. The original institution ruling remains unchanged.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Kohler’s IPR against Delta Faucet’s illuminated faucet patent continues after the Director issued a new claim construction. The patent owner argues the Board’s findings should stand and that the Director’s action violates the APA.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Kohler seeks reversal of the Board’s non‑obviousness rulings after a Director Review found that Tseng teaches side‑emitting light and Tse teaches translucent material, arguing that multiple claims of the Delta Faucet patent are obvious.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. and AX Wireless have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 10,554,459 after reaching a settlement, filing a joint stipulation for dismissal in the Eastern District of Texas.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
The PTAB issued an order extending by 30 days the deadline to issue a decision on remand in the IPR between Kohler and Delta Faucet over U.S. Patent 10,393,363. The extension is justified by the volume of grounds and claims raised in the parties' briefs.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The Director denied Google LLC's request for a rehearing of the institution decision in IPR2024-00746, keeping the original institution ruling intact. No new arguments or evidence altered the outcome.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
HPE and Cisco settled their IPR with Cobblestone Wireless over U.S. Patent 7,924,802, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of claim 44 of Greenthread’s ’222 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Payne and over Sakai/Kawagoe. Texas Instruments’ motion to join the earlier IPR2023-01244 was also granted.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments secured a joint IPR, expanding its challenge to Greenthread’s 10,510,842 patent covering graded dopant semiconductor devices. The Board instituted review of all 18 claims and approved the joinder, citing a reasonable likelihood of success and no prejudice to the existing proceeding.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,607,407 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPR, and the Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Kohler Co. has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s final decision that upheld the validity of claims 10 and 19 of its illuminated fixture patent. The petition alleges factual errors and ignored expert admissions, seeking reversal of the Board’s findings.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco Systems and Video Solutions settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,649,426, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 9,342,078. They jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding without a final written decision.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. filed a Director Review request in IPR2024-00785 concerning patent 10,407,026; the patent owner may respond within five business days.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco and Video Solutions have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,649,426 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and the Board’s guidance favoring settlement.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco and Video Solutions jointly requested confidentiality for their settlement agreement and moved to terminate IPR2024-00695 concerning patent 8,649,426.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The USPTO denied Aylo Freesites’ request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00710, leaving the patent owner’s rights intact.
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.