US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 157 of 291 · 8,722 total
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,972,654 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties seek dismissal under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
The USPTO denied Liberty Energy's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00031, leaving the IPR proceeding intact.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Court decision.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,972,654 B2 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement documents as confidential.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
Catalyst OrthoScience has petitioned the PTAB to institute a post‑grant review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim terms.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 10,655,435, alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art pump‑control references. The petition argues the case meets the Fintiv institutional factors and requests the Board to institute the review.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, asserting that the Nakajima reference makes the claims obvious under §103. The petition argues no discretionary denial applies and seeks institution of the review.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘604 patent, asserting obviousness over Thimmegowda combined with Lee and Kobayashi. The petition seeks institution and argues no discretionary denial applies.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of six claims of Ericsson’s ’654 patent, asserting that prior‑art references Park, Kim, and Panasonic render the claims obvious or anticipated.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
The PTAB denied Catalyst OrthoScience's Post-Grant Review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent (12,023,254). The denial was based on the advanced stage and significant overlap with co-pending district court litigation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's IPR challenge against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D memory structures was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Micron failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its obviousness grounds over prior art combinations.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned to challenge key claims in a semiconductor memory patent held by Yangtze Memory Technologies, leading to institution at the PTAB. The Board focused on obviousness (103) over Nakajima, balancing technical merits with parallel litigation factors.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for Micron against Yangtze Memory Technologies because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on any remaining claims after several key claims were disclaimed.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge U.S. Well Services' smart hydraulic fracturing patent, leading to institution for all 19 claims. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments that prior art references like Norris disclose key elements of the system.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that it believes misinterpreted the means‑plus‑function claim language in NL Giken’s video‑processing patent. The Patent Owner contends the Board’s construction flip‑flopping and procedural errors warrant vacatur under §314(a).
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google successfully defended its IPR on a Bluetooth data‑exchange patent, and the PTAB denied the Patent Owner’s Director Review request, finding the new arguments unsupported.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
DH International Ltd. filed a Director Review request in IPR2024-01322 against Google LLC. The petitioner has five business days to file a concise response, and no new evidence is allowed.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01322, leaving the institution of patent 9,022,294 B2 in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken over U.S. Patent 9,948,968. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, treating the settlement as confidential. The proceeding is now closed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2024-01345 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent holder NL Giken. The motion cites public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and requests Board approval to end the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon’s petition for Director Review of the institution decision on NL Giken’s patent 9,948,968 was denied, leaving the institution intact.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon files a response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against NL Giken, arguing the Board’s claim constructions are correct and discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The patent owner DH International Ltd. has requested Director Review in IPR2024-01322 concerning Google LLC's challenge to U.S. Patent No. 9,022,294. The Board has limited the petitioner's response to a 15‑page brief addressing only the issues raised, with no new evidence permitted.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
DH International Ltd. seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its Bluetooth‑related patent, arguing the Board used an improper subjective standard and that the cited prior art does not teach the required activation cue.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against DH International’s patent, rejecting claims of abuse of discretion and improper pre‑institution briefing.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The patent owner seeks Director Review, asserting the PTAB misinterpreted “close proximity” and the activation cue in its Bluetooth‑based data‑exchange patent. It claims the Board’s reliance on Mooney and Lee references is unsupported, urging reversal of the unpatentability finding for claims 1‑20.
Par-Kan Company, LLC et al. v.Unverferth Mfg. Co., Inc.
Par‑Kan has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 10‑21 of U.S. Patent 9,745,123, arguing they are obvious over earlier seed‑handling manuals and patents. The petition argues that discretionary‑denial factors do not support a denial and requests institution.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 13 claims of DH International’s ’333 smart‑card patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art smart‑card references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial of institution.
Par-Kan Company, LLC et al. v.Unverferth Mfg. Co., Inc.
Par‑Kan has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 16‑23 of Unverferth’s seed‑carrier patent, arguing obviousness over several prior‑art manuals and patents. The petition also argues that discretionary denial factors weigh against a denial, urging the Board to institute the review.
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.