US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 136 of 286 · 8,574 total
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against DISH Technologies’ patent. The petitioner alleges the board misapplied General Plastic analysis and Fintiv factors. The case remains pending director review.
Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association
Fifth Third Bank has filed a petition to have the PTAB institute an IPR against USAA’s 12,159,310 patent covering mobile check‑deposit methods, asserting that all 16 claims are obvious over a body of prior art.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑37 of SoftView’s ’628 patent, asserting obviousness over Zaurus, Pad++, and SVG references and arguing the claims are indistinct from already invalidated claims in related patents.
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
Good Sportsman Marketing petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑19 of the ’855 patent, arguing obviousness over Unger and Smith, indefiniteness of several claims, and lack of enablement and written description for claim 10.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of Smart Speaker’s ’720 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering microphones, WLAN, speakers, and lighting. The petition highlights a deficient examiner search and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The PTAB denied Cisco's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00497 concerning Umbra's patent 10,630,505.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra has requested a Director Review of IPR2024-00497. Cisco may file a limited 15‑page response without new evidence, and the Director will decide on the request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research LLC seeks Director review of an IPR decision that found all claims of its 2013 MMS messaging patent unpatentable. The patent owner contends the Board improperly relied on expert testimony because the cited prior art (TS-23.140) does not disclose the required agent communication bus. The request asks the Director to vacate the decision and terminate the IPR.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The Ridge Wallet and Shenzhen Pincan Technology have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,791,808 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health have settled all disputes over four patents and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPRs. The Board is asked to grant termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) per established precedent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google have filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of a second IPR covering all 30 claims of Headwater’s ’733 patent. They argue the denial was improper and that the Patent Owner’s stipulation fails to protect their products from future litigation.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited and ICPillar LLC jointly moved to terminate an IPR after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung and Google's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00341 concerning patent 8,406,733.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
Arm and Icpillar have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 8,924,899 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement confidential, effectively ending the proceeding.
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
Good Sportsman Marketing petitions the PTAB to invalidate Hangzhou ZH Tech’s ’855 patent covering a walkie‑talkie mount for earmuffs, asserting obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of enablement/written description across all 19 claims.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Ltd. and patent owner ICPillar LLC have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,924,899. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Tricam Industries, LLC v.--
Tricam Industries filed a PGR petition for U.S. Patent 12,359,506, providing a corrected exhibit list that includes prior patents and a related Federal Circuit case.
Daifuku Co., Ltd. et al. v.CLX Engineering
Daifuku and CLX Engineering settled their IPR dispute before any trial, resulting in a Board order terminating the proceeding and sealing the settlement agreement.
Daifuku Co., Ltd. et al. v.CLX Engineering
Daifuku and CLX Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,386,602 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the case on public‑policy grounds favoring settlement.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems argues that the PTAB correctly applied the prosecution history to the ‘aid the movement of carriers’ limitation and that Greenthread’s Director Review request merely repeats arguments already rejected. The petitioner seeks denial of the request to preserve the invalidity finding.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Netlist’s memory‑interface patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied General Plastic discretionary denial factors to a me‑too petition.
Okta, Inc. et al. v.Thales DIS France SAS
Okta has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Thales' ’982 patent covering biometric hash‑based authentication. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of Starner, Leskovec, Shaashua, and Bowman references.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec and Senko Advanced Components entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of multiple IPR proceedings, including the patent covering 11,415,760. The Board granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement agreement.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR on claim 44 of Greenthread’s ’222 patent after finding a reasonable likelihood that Monolithic Power Systems would prevail, based on obviousness arguments over Onoda, Nishizawa, and Kawagoe.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Micron's request for Director Review of the decision that had previously denied institution of its IPR against Netlist's patent. The original institution denial therefore stands.
Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association
Fifth Third Bank has filed a petition to institute an IPR against US Patent 12,211,095 covering mobile check‑deposit technology. The petition alleges that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of earlier mobile imaging references. It seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The USPTO denied Ericsson and Nokia's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2024-00314, leaving the original denial of institution intact.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The USPTO denied Cisco's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00344, leaving the earlier IPR outcome unchanged.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems argues that Greenthread’s request for Director Review should be denied because the Board’s interpretation of the claim term “aid” was correct and the arguments have already been rejected in prior proceedings.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems filed a response opposing Greenthread’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision that found the ’195 patent claims unpatentable. The petitioner contends the Board correctly applied prosecution history and that the request merely repeats arguments already rejected in multiple IPRs.
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.