US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 123 of 291 · 8,722 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Ouraring, Inc. et al.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Oura’s finger‑ring health‑monitor patent, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under the Fintiv provision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Ouraring, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted the IPR against Ouraring, Inc. et al., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The institution decision targets 17 claims related to smart rings and biometric monitoring technology.
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
NXP and Redstone Logics filed a joint motion to dismiss NXP as a co‑petitioner in IPR2025‑00485, citing an agreement in principle and statutory bars on further petitions. The Board’s authority to dismiss a co‑petitioner pre‑institution is argued, with no settlement‑agreement requirement.
Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,593,458 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential.
Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and patent owner ASSIA have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,991,122 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential.
Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate an IPR concerning U.S. Patent 7,991,122. The PTAB granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential, ending the proceeding before trial.
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
NXP and Qualcomm have filed an IPR petition challenging Redstone Logics' 8,549,339 patent covering multi‑core processors with independent voltage and clock domains, seeking cancellation of ten claims on obviousness grounds.
Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.
Nokia petitions the PTAB to invalidate 11 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s DSL crosstalk patent, arguing obviousness over Rezvani and Cendrillon I, with an additional reliance on the G.992.3 standard for claim 11.
Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s DSL‑crosstalk patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over three prior‑art references that were never considered during prosecution.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,421,188 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, and the Board granted the termination before instituting a trial.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,244,284 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00519, requesting the settlement be treated as business confidential information.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before a trial was instituted.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,421,188. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,244,284. They jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Cerence’s in‑vehicle voice‑control patent was denied, leaving the original denial intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Cerence’s voice‑control patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that all Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial, rendering the review request untenable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cerence’s voice‑assistant patent was rejected. The Board affirmed its discretionary denial, citing the Fintiv factors and settled expectations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a decision denying institution of its IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent, alleging procedural abuse and statutory non‑compliance.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung Electronics filed Director Review requests for three IPRs against Cerence Operating Company. The PTAB has limited the Patent Owner to a brief, evidence‑free response, and the Director will decide on the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review, arguing that the PTAB director improperly denied institution of its IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent. The petition cites misuse of Fintiv factors, unsupported settled‑expectations claims, and a failure to meet §314(c) notice requirements.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial of institution in IPR2025-00458, upholding the Board’s discretionary denial based on Fintiv factors and settled expectations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review, contending that the PTAB abused its discretion in denying institution of an IPR against Cerence’s ‘486 patent. The arguments focus on misapplication of Fintiv factors, unfounded settled‑expectations claims, and a breach of §314(c) notice requirements.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,244,284 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of PTAB institution denials in three IPRs involving Cerence’s patent were denied, leaving the institution decisions intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
The PTAB Director denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial on Cerence’s patent 8,825,486. The order confirms the original denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Court decision.
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.