US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 126 of 188 · 5,620 total
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petitioned for rehearing of a USPTO Director Review decision across several IPRs. The Board denied the rehearing requests, leaving the prior institution decisions in place.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to overturn a Director’s discretionary denial that left Mullen Industries’ 19‑claim patent alive. The petition argues misapplication of Fintiv factors, failure to honor a Sotera stipulation, and retroactive rescission of guidance.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ patent was denied. The Patent Owner’s response emphasized the Director’s discretionary authority, the parallel district‑court trial, and weak petition merits.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ wireless‑device patent. Mullen has filed a Director Review request arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and should deny institution under §314(a). The outcome of the review is pending.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Netlist seeks Director review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 11,386,024 patent, arguing Samsung’s record is overly voluminous and its six grounds lack particularity. The petition urges denial of institution and referral to district court.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung Electronics' IPR against Netlist’s 8,489,837 B1 patent succeeded, finding claims 1‑3,5,6 unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references LeClerg, Lee, and Kim. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and rejected the patent owner’s arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB found all 29 claims of Netlist's ’623 memory module patent unpatentable, deeming them obvious over a combination of prior art references including Hazelzet, Buchmann, and Talbot. Samsung, as petitioner, secured a complete cancellation of the patent claims.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Mullen Industries requested Director Review of multiple IPRs against Google. The PTAB limited Google’s reply to five pages and barred new evidence, giving a five‑business‑day deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 24 claims. The Board declined to exercise discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung files an authorized response opposing Netlist’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision on U.S. Patent 11,386,024, arguing procedural waivers and public accessibility of the JEDEC proposal.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged Netlist’s 9,858,218 patent covering memory‑module handshaking. The PTAB found all 22 claims obvious over prior‑art combinations of Hazelzet and Buchmann. The decision also rejected the parties’ proposed claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in Netlist’s memory‑module patent case, leaving the institution in place.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Fujifilm and Optimum Imaging Technologies have reached a settlement-in-principle in their IPR dispute, requesting a 60‑day stay to finalize dismissal. The parties will file a stipulation of dismissal within two months.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB sent an email notifying Samsung and Netlist of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00001 and IPR2025-00002, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages and prohibiting new evidence. The director will decide whether to grant the review.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The petitioners and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled all disputes related to U.S. Patent 10,877,266. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board has not yet decided the merits, making termination appropriate.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have agreed to settle their patent dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266, planning to dismiss the case after a 45‑day stay.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Fujifilm and other petitioners settled their IPR disputes with Optimum Imaging Technologies. The Board terminated the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreements to remain confidential.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC and Olympus Corporation have reached a settlement-in-principle in a Texas district court case, planning to file a stipulation of dismissal and requesting a 45‑day stay of deadlines.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in a Texas district court case, planning to dismiss the lawsuit after a 45‑day stay. The agreement ends the dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 20 claims of Netlist’s 11,386,024 patent covering DDR3 memory‑module training. The petition relies on prior art combinations of Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang and Kim, and cites earlier PTAB decisions that cancelled similar claims. It requests that the Board institute a trial.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 19 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
FUJIFILM and a coalition of camera makers have filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’266 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple pre‑2005 camera‑technology patents. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of IPR for Mullen Industries against Google LLC et al., vacating the prior decision. The denial was based on a holistic Fintiv analysis where procedural factors outweighed the merits.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR on all 30 challenged claims for FUJIFILM Corporation et al. against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over Sarbadhikari and Katagiri. The decision was based on Petitioner's diligent filing and favorable factors regarding parallel district court litigation despite Patent Owner arguments to the contrary.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation petitioned the PTAB challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell patents based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that combining specific prior art references, such as Froitzheim and Gan, renders the claimed photovoltaic structures predictable and obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art. This petition addresses ongoing district court litigation between the parties.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. et al.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation has filed a petition challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, such as FSF doping and gettering, are conventional and render the invention predictable when combined with existing prior art.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., leading to trial on all 20 challenged claims. The Board found that Petitioner met the threshold for obviousness by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of combining prior art references (Froitzheim, Gan, Smith, Li).
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1-11 are unpatentable over combinations of prior art references (Froitzheim, Gan, Sheats). Claim 12 was not shown to be unpatentable. The Board found the Petitioner met its burden regarding reasonable expectation of success for several claims.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that various combinations of prior art—including Froitzheim, Gan, Smith, and Li—would render the Maxeon patent obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. et al.
The PTAB issued a final written decision denying Petitioner's challenge to claims 10-20 of Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent. The Board construed the key term 'metal impurities' as 'unintentional foreign metals,' rejecting arguments that intentional dopants qualified. Ultimately, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
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.