US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 14 of 291 · 8,722 total
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE have settled their IPR dispute with Champion Power over a dual‑fuel selector switch. They filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential and to withdraw from the proceeding.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution denial in three IPRs involving Advanced Coding Technologies' patents. The order confirms the original institution decisions remain in effect.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01189 concerning patent 11,368,911. The Board granted the motion and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01189 after reaching a settlement covering multiple patents. The motion cites lack of a final written decision and the benefits of conserving Board resources.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that terminated the IPR on patent 11,272,535. The Board granted the joint motion under 35 U.S.C. §317 and kept the settlement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over multiple patents, leading them to jointly move to terminate the pending IPR for patent 11,272,535.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Hannibal IP LLC requests the PTAB Director deny Samsung's IPR on its 5G LBT patent, arguing the challenge is weak, relies on flawed expert testimony, and that the prior art mirrors prosecution disclosures. Samsung’s prior knowledge and the imminent district‑court trial further support denial.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac and co‑petitioners filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the patent file, limiting disclosure under 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the challenge to patent 9,042,448 owned by Advanced Coding Technologies.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01188, citing their settlement agreement and requesting it be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The Board is asked to end the proceeding and seal the settlement details.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Hannibal IP seeks to block Samsung’s IPR over its 5G power‑saving patent, arguing the challenge is weak, relies on expert testimony, and that Samsung had prior notice of the patent. The request cites timing of a parallel trial and unlikely stay to argue for discretionary denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01189, seeking to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 12 claims of Advanced Coding Technologies’ 2012 media‑server patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac Power Systems has filed an IPR petition challenging Champion Power’s U.S. Patent 11,905,896 covering dual‑fuel generator selector switches. The petition asserts that 38 claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references and disputes the patent owner’s claim constructions. Petitioners seek cancellation of all challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Hannibal IP’s ’911 patent covering PDCCH monitoring and DRX power‑saving techniques. The petition relies on Nimbalker and several 3GPP documents as prior art under §§102 and 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Hannibal IP’s U.S. Patent 11,272,535 covering LBT failure detection in 5G UE. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple pre‑grant publications and 3GPP standards. The Board is asked to institute the review and invalidate the claims.
Spotify AB et al. v.Tijerino, Manuel
Spotify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of U.S. Patent 9,146,925, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art jukebox systems and audio‑processing patents. The petition also argues against a § 314(a) or § 325(d) denial, citing favorable Fintiv factors.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging three claims of Advanced Coding Technologies' 2015 video‑compression patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art combinations involving Phek, Martins, He, and Sakazume. The petition argues the examiner never considered these combinations, seeking institution of the review.
SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLight v.Pathway IP LLC
ShutterLight petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 13 claims of Pathway IP’s 7,841,729 webcam illuminator patent, asserting obviousness over eight prior‑art references.
Pinterest, Inc. v.OpenTV, Inc. et al.
Pinterest has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate OpenTV’s ’169 Patent claims covering interactive‑TV rendering methods, citing obviousness over five prior‑art references.
Spotify AB et al. v.Tijerino, Manuel
Spotify USA Inc. successfully challenged 17 claims of the '9146925 patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB preliminarily found that the combination of prior art references—Laut, Kincaid, and Bongiovi—renders the claimed digital jukebox system obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied the institution of multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, meaning no trial will take place.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied institution for IPR2025-01277, meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent.
SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLight v.Pathway IP LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against Pathway IP LLC's '729 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Petitioner argues that Claim 1 is obvious over Naghi and Dine by combining their respective features to create an optimized webcam illumination device.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution in an IPR against Hannibal IP LLC's patent 11272535. The proceeding is currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01189, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Hannibal IP's patent, though the proceeding is currently stayed.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The Board instituted IPR2020‑01206 on 294 claims of the ’691 patent and held eight claims unpatentable for anticipation by Grupp ’483, while leaving the remaining claims intact.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB found 11 of the 14 challenged claims of the ’395 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) due to anticipation by Grupp ’483, while claims 11, 12, and 14 survived. Written‑description and enablement challenges were rejected.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung's claims 1‑5 and 8‑10 of the ’395 patent were anticipated by Goodnick, rendering them unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims were left intact.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB found all challenged claims of the ’261 patent unpatentable after concluding that prior art Grupp ’483 anticipates the claims and Jammy renders them obvious. Motions to exclude expert testimony were 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.