US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 154 of 291 · 8,722 total
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco’s IPR against WSOU’s ’691 patent was instituted, but the patent owner seeks Director Review, alleging the Panel ignored discretionary‑denial briefing and misapplied the Sotera stipulation analysis. The request aims to have the institution decision vacated.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco’s petition to reinstate an IPR against WSOU’s 8,982,691 patent was opposed by the patent owner, who argued the Director correctly denied institution based on efficiency factors and the limited weight of the Sotera stipulation.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco Systems responded to WSOU Investments’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision in IPR2025-00188. The petitioner argues the Board properly considered all relevant factors and exercised discretion, so the review should be denied.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco has filed a petition for rehearing after the Director vacated the institution of its IPR against patent 8,982,691. The company argues the Director overstepped authority by demanding a waiver of district‑court defenses.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco’s request for rehearing of the Director Review decision in IPR2025-00188 was denied, maintaining the denial of institution of the inter partes review against patent 8,982,691.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its PAP device patent. The petitioner contends the Board misapplied General Plastic, contrary to recent Director guidance. The request emphasizes different prior art and the need for efficient review of related patents.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed seeks a PTAB waiver of the 30‑day deadline to request Director Review after the Board denied institution of its IPR, citing a conflicting Director decision and the need for consistency across related petitions.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR, accompanied by a confidential settlement agreement. The PTAB granted the termination and ordered the settlement to be kept confidential.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco Components settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00091 covering a drivetrain patent.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco Components entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of two inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco Components jointly moved to terminate two IPRs after reaching a settlement, and the Board granted the termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file in IPR2025‑00090.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,434,958 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under settlement provisions of the patent law.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, Nokia, AT&T, Verizon, Google, and T‑Mobile jointly request that the Board treat their settlement with Pegasus as confidential and terminate the IPR over the ’463 patent, citing that all disputes have been resolved.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, KT, and Pegasus have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,638,463 and seek to terminate the IPR as to Ericsson. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and emphasizes public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, Nokia, Google and other carriers have moved to partially terminate an IPR over Pegasus’s 5G carrier‑aggregation patent after executing binding term sheets with the patent owner and dismissing related district‑court cases.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, KT and Pegasus have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,638,463 and filed a joint motion to partially terminate the IPR against Ericsson. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties argue that settlement warrants termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed’s request to waive the deadline for a Director Review of its IPR petition was met with a detailed opposition from Cleveland Medical Devices, which argues no good cause exists and cites Board precedent. The patent owner urges denial of the waiver, emphasizing procedural rules and lack of new discretionary factors.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB denied ResMed’s request to waive the deadline for a Director Review in IPR2025-00157, finding the request untimely under the regulations.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Court decision.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and keep it separate from the patent file.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime reached a settlement that resolves all disputes, prompting a joint motion to terminate the IPR on patent 9,887,838. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties seek termination.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed filed a request to waive the 30‑day deadline for a Director Review in its IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices. The Board has set a five‑day window for the patent owner to respond, limiting the reply to five pages and prohibiting new evidence.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson and other U.S. carriers have filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR covering a 5G patent owned by Korea’s KT Corp. They argue the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, ignored a Sotera stipulation, and acted retroactively, violating due‑process. The request seeks reversal of the denial.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson, KT and Pegasus entered a settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review as to Ericsson. The Board treated the settlement as confidential and left the proceeding open for the remaining petitioners.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia, KT, and Pegasus have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,638,463 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to Nokia. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied a Director Review request by Ericsson and other petitioners, leaving the institution of Pegasus Wireless Innovation's patent 10,638,463 intact.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Pegasus Wireless Innovation seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR on its ’463 patent, arguing the patent has been dropped from related district‑court litigation and should not consume Board resources.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR covering Pegasus’s 5G‑related patent. Petitioners sought Director Review, but the patent owner’s authorized response argues the denial was a proper exercise of §314(a) discretion and that the petitioners introduced new, unsupported arguments. The Board’s decision is urged to be upheld.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied Ericsson and co‑petitioners' request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00084, leaving the institution of the challenge to Pegasus Wireless Innovation's patent intact.
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.