US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 137 of 286 · 8,574 total
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction and obviousness finding for its MOSFET doping‑profile patent (U.S. 9,190,502). The petitioner argues the Board misinterpreted functional claim language and ignored district‑court rulings, asserting that the cited references do not teach the required carrier‑movement limitation.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Eye Therapies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,833,245 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317, citing policy and precedent favoring termination after settlement.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems successfully instituted an IPR against Greenthread’s 8,421,195 patent covering CMOS devices with graded dopant regions, citing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Eye Therapies entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of two inter partes review proceedings covering patents 11,833,245 and 11,596,600. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant and Vigilytics have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,665,685 B1. They jointly request the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC entered a settlement that resolved all disputes over three patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the associated IPRs. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
The USPTO denied Arm Limited's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00476 concerning patent 8,924,899. The petition was found not to meet the required standards.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,812. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of oral hearing. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding in its entirety.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
DISH Network seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on its cable‑network patent, arguing the panel misapplied obviousness standards and acted inconsistently with a similar case.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant and Vigilytics settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,886,012 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board was asked to end the case under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
lululemon usa inc. et al. v.Nike, Inc.
In IPR2024-00460, the PTAB affirmed that the Nishida reference anticipates lululemon's claims of a footwear knitting method, rejecting Nike's new precision argument. The petitioner's response underscores the Board’s proper reliance on intrinsic disclosure and consistent expert testimony.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Advanced Coding Technologies settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treat the settlement as confidential. No merits were decided.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
The USPTO denied director review requests for two IPR institution decisions involving Microsoft and other PC makers against LiTL LLC, leaving the original institution outcomes unchanged.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft filed a request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against LiTL’s ‘818 GUI patent. The petition alleges the Board misapplied obviousness law and acted inconsistently with a related granted IPR.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast has filed a petition for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Entropic’s 7,889,759 cable‑network patent. The petition contends the Board made factual and legal errors in its motivation‑to‑combine analysis. It requests that the Director institute the IPR.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Smart Speaker’s ’721 smart‑home patent, asserting that all asserted claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast’s petition argues the PTAB correctly applied Rabenko’s disclosure to find the ’775 patent claims unpatentable. The Board’s reasoning was sound, and the Director Review request is denied.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast filed a Director Review request seeking reversal of a PTAB decision that invalidated claims of its cable‑modem patent. The patent owner alleges the Board relied on untimely arguments and misinterpreted key claim limitations.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑00443 concerning U.S. Patent 8,919,654. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that claims 1‑18 of Entropic’s 8,792,008 patent are unpatentable was denied. The Board found the petition provided a sufficient reasoned basis and the patent owner waived unraised arguments.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Entropic Communications seeks Director review of an IPR where the PTAB declared all 18 claims of its cable‑broadband patent unpatentable. The owner alleges procedural abuse, invented arguments, and inconsistent rulings with a related IPR. It requests reversal and termination of the proceeding.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia, LLC and Jeisys Medical Inc. jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast rejects Entropic Communications' request to file new exhibits in IPR2024-00435, arguing the request is untimely after final decisions.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast argues that Entropic’s request for Director Review of the IPR’s Final Written Decision should be denied because the Patent Owner failed to provide relevant evidence and raised no valid procedural or legal grounds.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast opposes Entropic Communications' request to submit new exhibits after PTAB final decisions, arguing the request is untimely and unsupported. The petition seeks denial of the exhibit submission.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast submits an authorized response urging denial of Entropic’s request for Director Review of the IPR’s Final Written Decision, asserting no abuse of discretion and that the Board’s explanation of the Zhang reference satisfies the required memorandum.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Entropic Communications requests Director review of a PTAB decision that found its television channel‑selection patent unpatentable. The owner argues the Board ignored prior examiner and reexamination findings, violating a recent Director memorandum.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00432 (and related IPRs), leaving the Board's original decision in place.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast successfully opposed Entropic’s Director Review request, arguing the Board’s decision already met procedural requirements and that Entropic’s late arguments were waived. The request was denied.
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.