US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 145 of 291 · 8,722 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,710,473 and jointly request the Board keep the settlement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,710,473 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The PTAB affirmed all claims of LG Energy Solution’s lithium‑ion battery patent after finding the challenger’s obviousness arguments unsupported. The Board emphasized that Ohata’s masterbatch embeds carbon nanotubes, preventing the required ionic attachment, and rejected the petitioner’s speculation about resin removal.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution’s challenge to the ’924 lithium‑ion battery patent was rejected. The Board found no sufficient evidence of obviousness over the cited prior art, leaving all five claims intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya entered a joint settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate eight inter partes review proceedings without a final written decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,710,473 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya jointly moved to end multiple IPRs covering patent 11,710,473. The PTAB granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology Development LLC seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that claims 25‑28 of its 8,798,120 patent are unpatentable. The owner argues the Board misapplied the district court’s claim construction and relied on unsupported prior art. Samsung Electronics is the challenger.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung files a reply supporting its IPR petition against Empire Technology’s 8,798,120 patent, arguing that the claim term “idle power consumption of the mobile station” is correctly construed and that claims 25‑29 are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering power‑control techniques.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung rebuts Empire’s request to reinterpret the term “idle power consumption” and to overturn the Board’s obviousness findings. The Board’s construction aligns with the district court and expert testimony, and Empire’s isolated prior‑art attacks are insufficient.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung has filed a preliminary reply opposing Empire Technology’s narrow claim construction of “idle power consumption” in U.S. Patent 8,798,120. The argument centers on the patent’s disclosure of leakage‑current power draw during sleep mode, which Samsung says renders the proposed construction unsupported.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00896, leaving the IPR's outcome unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology has filed a Director Review request in IPR2024‑00896. Samsung has five business days to submit a limited response, with no new evidence allowed.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution has filed a petition challenging the validity of Molecular Rebar Design's patents covering advanced nanomaterials for batteries. The challenge centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on combinations of prior art references, alongside arguments regarding lack of written description support.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution initiated an IPR challenge against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC regarding patents covering battery/electrolyte materials utilizing nanotubes. The core dispute centers on whether the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references like Bosnyak-392 and Son. Petitioner argues that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to make these claimed innovations.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution challenges Molecular Rebar Design's patent on lithium-ion battery composites, arguing the technology is obvious based on prior art combinations of carbon nanotubes.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a Petition challenging Staton Techiya's patent (11710473) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenger argues that the claimed audio processing and ambient sound control features are merely combinations of prior art teachings from Kirsch, DiCenso, Goldstein, and Woodruff. This challenge targets a broad range of claims related to earpiece functionality.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,710,473 owned by Staton Techiya, LLC. The core argument asserts that the patent's claims related to ambient sound control are obvious based on combinations of various prior art references. This challenge is tied to ongoing district court litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
The petitioner asserts that several challenged claims related to MIMO/SIMO mode selection and power optimization in wireless communications are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The arguments rely on combining established prior art, including Li-Siam, Cui-2003, Wu, and Tiirola, to demonstrate predictable combinations of circuit and radio frequency power usage.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC regarding lithium-ion battery technology. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims despite arguments of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully convinced the PTAB that its obviousness challenges against Molecular Rebar Design's battery patent were strong enough for institution. The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple prior art combinations, leading to the IPR being instituted on all 16 claims.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC's battery patent (8968924). The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Ohata and Kavan. This decision allows the challenge to proceed to a full trial phase at the PTAB.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for IPR against Empire Technology Development's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art. The Board preliminarily adopted a broad definition of 'idle power consumption,' setting the stage for a detailed examination of technical combination possibilities.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
The PTAB found claims 25-28 unpatentable over Li and Siam, based on obviousness (103). The Board adopted a specific construction of 'idle power consumption' as power consumed while powered on and waiting to send data. However, the attempt to prove obviousness for claim 29 failed due to impermissible hindsight bias.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their IPR dispute over a RF connector patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron's request for Director Review of IPR2024-00794 was dismissed after Yangtze Memory appealed the PTAB's Final Written Decision, leaving the Board without jurisdiction.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s final decision upholding claims 2‑5 and 7‑11 of its 3D NAND patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards, especially regarding the Park and Shibata references. A reversal could invalidate the Board’s findings and affect Micron’s memory‑technology portfolio.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko and US Conec jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement confidential and to withdraw the IPR petition, effectively ending the dispute over patent 11,385,415.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron's request for director review of the PTAB's decision on its 3D NAND patent was denied. The Board affirmed that Micron failed to meet the burden of proving obviousness or motivation to combine prior art references.
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.