US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 122 of 286 · 8,574 total
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
Motorola Mobility seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Largan’s 9,997,660 patent covering a light‑trap optical sheet. The petitioner claims the Board erred by dismissing simultaneous‑invention evidence and applying an unduly rigid obviousness test.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKINETICS settled their dispute over two patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review proceedings before trial.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
The PTAB denied Vicor Corporation’s request for Director review of the institution decisions in IPR2024-00706 and IPR2024-00715, leaving the earlier institution denial in place.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKinetics settled their dispute over two patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPRs before any trial was instituted.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Anderson Power Products seeks director review to overturn the Board’s institution and final written decision that found several claims of its arc‑suppressing connector patent unpatentable over Winkler. The owner argues the petition lacked particularity and the Board’s claim construction of “within” was erroneous.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
The PTAB denied Cisco's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00695, leaving the institution of the challenged patent claims intact.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent No. 8,786,133 and jointly request the Board keep the settlement agreement confidential. The motion invokes statutory confidentiality provisions and cites prior Board precedent.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight inter partes review proceedings before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
BizLink defends the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑3 and 7‑12 of Anderson’s 8,808,017 patent are anticipated by the 1958 Winkler reference, urging the Director to deny the request for review.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO Director denied Samsung's request for a Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00735, leaving the original denial of institution in place.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKinetics filed a joint motion to dismiss the IPR over U.S. Patent 10,786,669, citing a confidential settlement and the early stage of the proceeding. They request the Board terminate the case before institution to preserve resources.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Toyota and Infogation settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 6,292,743 and jointly moved to dismiss the pending inter partes review.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate IPR 2024-00686 after reaching a settlement. The Board accepted the motion under 35 U.S.C. §317, ending the proceeding without a merits decision.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,291,449, citing a settlement agreement and the Board’s authority to end proceedings before a final decision.
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and affiliates filed a joint notice that a redacted version of the PTAB’s final written decision in Samsung Display’s OLED display patent case has been prepared. The redactions protect confidential material while allowing the decision to be filed.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate eight inter partes review proceedings, including the IPR challenging patent 10,291,449 B2, before any trial was instituted.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,291,449 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties seek dismissal under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The USPTO denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00747 concerning Patent 7,502,738 owned by Dialect LLC.
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 termination motions and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet requested a Director Review of the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against InfoExpress's patent 8,117,645. The Director denied the request, leaving the institution decision denied.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The Director Review order grants Texas Instruments a remand, vacating the PTAB’s final decision. The Board is instructed to allow narrow discovery on privity and to consider previously excluded claim‑construction orders.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and Dell Technologies jointly moved to terminate the IPR against AX Wireless’s patent 10,554,459 after reaching a settlement, filing a joint stipulation for dismissal in the Eastern District of Texas.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00643 concerning patent 8056075. The Board has not yet ruled, but the motion seeks dismissal of the proceeding.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate an IPR over patent 10,917,272 after reaching a settlement. The Board accepted the joint request under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKinetics filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business‑confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and to dismiss the pending IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00735, leaving the prior decision in place.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight IPRs before they were instituted, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement agreements confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00691, leaving Nokia's patent institution intact.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after reaching a settlement, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties have filed a joint stipulation for dismissal in district court.
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.