US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 120 of 188 · 5,620 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research jointly filed a motion to treat their settlement agreement as confidential and terminate the IPR proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
Apple and NL Giken settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,948,968 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential and the proceeding was terminated.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research have entered a settlement covering U.S. Patent 8,588,110. The parties jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record.
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
Apple and NL Giken filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑01277 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences' request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01315. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and noted that the deadline for Director Review had passed. The institution of the IPR therefore remains in effect.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research entered a settlement that led to a joint motion to terminate the IPR over patent 8,588,110. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the proceeding and treating the settlement documents as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,588,110 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under the statutory termination provisions.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR concerning OLED display modules, citing a confidential settlement that resolves all issues. The Board is asked to dismiss the case under statutory provisions for settlement.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
The PTAB denied Adobe’s request for Director Review of the institution decision on patent 6,757,828, leaving the institution intact.
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
Apple and NL Giken have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,948,968. The parties filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Headwater Research’s ’110 patent on data‑usage billing. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and argues against discretionary denial. A stipulation not to pursue the same issues in parallel district‑court litigation is also included.
Cargill, Incorporated v.Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLC
Cargill has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Bunge’s 7,645,473 patent covering vegetable‑fat blends, arguing the claims are obvious over a 1998 Petrauskaite publication and other prior art. The petition details extensive calculations to show the claimed ranges are disclosed or predictable. The Board must decide whether to institute the trial.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
Digital Global Systems seeks IPR on DeepSig’s 11,018,704 patent, asserting that all 24 claims are obvious over earlier machine‑learning predistortion patents (Jüschke, Holt, Dzierwa). The petition argues that the claimed innovations were well‑known and that the Board should institute the review.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
Adobe has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate six claims of Jaffe’s ’828 patent covering image‑authentication methods. The petition relies on obviousness over prior‑art camera and hashing patents, Exif metadata standards, and a data‑stream authentication patent.
Cargill, Incorporated v.Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge brought by Cargill against Bunge Loders Croklaan regarding vegetable fat composition claims. The Board found that the petitioner failed to overcome obviousness grounds, specifically rejecting arguments based on hindsight bias when converting prior art data.
Cargill, Incorporated v.Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLC
Cargill's request for rehearing was denied after the PTAB previously denied institution of IPR against Bunge Loders Croklaan USA regarding a vegetable fat composition patent. The Board found that Cargill’s arguments relied on hindsight bias, specifically in selecting prior art examples to meet claimed triglyceride ranges.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
Digital Global Systems successfully secured the institution of IPR against DeepSig's patent (11,018,704) over radio signal distortion correction claims, setting up a major technical dispute in cellular communications.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB institution decision allows Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. to challenge 30 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,588,110 B2 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Petitioner's view of the level of ordinary skill in the art and conducted claim construction for key 'means for' limitations. This sets the stage for a full IPR review against Headwater Research LLC.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED et al. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
Qualcomm successfully secured institution for its IPR against Cobblestone Wireless, despite the petition being substantively identical to a previously instituted Samsung proceeding. This decision emphasizes that lack of 'road-mapping' alone is insufficient grounds for discretionary denial when the claims are highly relevant.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
The Board found several claims of Patent No. 11,018,704 B1 unpatentable over prior art (Jüschke and Holt), primarily based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The decision involved extensive claim construction, notably finding that 'associated with' includes models implemented in a base station and that 'representation of' allows for modeled signals.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims of the '828 Patent. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction, specifically requiring monitoring of the physical coupling between the sensor and memory. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that any combination of prior art references renders the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED et al. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
The PTAB found several claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) using various prior art combinations in the field of multi-carrier communication systems. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'information' as 'data,' which was critical to its findings against the Patent Owner.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC.
Micron (as petitioner) seeks IPR of U.S. Patent 10,950,300 covering flash memory systems with MLC/SLC cells, arguing the claims are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja. The petition emphasizes early filing and favorable Fintiv factors to secure institution.
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia reached a settlement that resolved all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 10,869,812. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the instituted IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical Ltd. petitions to invalidate Serendia's microneedling patent (10869812) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references, including Mehta and Na’848. The petition challenges all 20 claims, arguing that the combination of existing technology renders the claimed invention non-novel or obvious.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC.
The PTAB denied the petition challenging a NAND Flash Memory System patent based on grounds including 101, 112, and 103. The Board found that the claims were directed toward a technological improvement in memory storage and adequately supported by the specification.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Feit Electric’s request to extend the Director Review deadline in two IPRs was denied as untimely, despite arguments about a recent policy change and foreign ownership concerns.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Anonymous Media Research Holdings settled their IPR before institution, dismissing the petition and the patent with prejudice.
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
Garmin and Saris have filed a joint request to keep their settlement confidential and to terminate the IPR over patent 10,434,394.
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
Garmin and Saris Equipment jointly moved to end the IPR over patent 10,434,394 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, terminating the proceeding and sealing the settlement agreement.
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.