US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 159 of 188 · 5,620 total
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Samsung and Slyde Analytics settled their IPR dispute over a wearable‑technology patent, leading the Board to terminate Samsung from the proceeding and grant confidentiality to the settlement agreement.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health Corporation initiated an IPR against Slyde Analytics, LLC regarding a smartwatch patent, asserting obviousness under 103. The petitioner relies on combining multiple prior art references to demonstrate that the claimed features were predictable applications of routine technology in wearable displays.
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
Applied Concepts Inc. filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,194,039, asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed traffic speed detection features are predictable combinations of existing prior art references.
Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Garmin Ltd. challenges the validity of Clyde Analytics' '033 Patent in an IPR proceeding, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petition details multiple grounds combining Mooring and Satoshi with additional references like Lee, Louch, and Tam to demonstrate unpatentability.
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 15 claims in a traffic radar system patent (11,194,039) after finding the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness over prior art references like Aker and Thomas.
HL Klemove Corporation v.Foras Technologies Limited
HL Klemove and Foras Technologies have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 7,502,958, citing settlement and the lack of any merits decision. The Board is expected to grant the motion under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Apple was granted a PTAB order instituting inter partes review of all 20 claims of the ‘289 patent and joining the ongoing Google IPR. The Board found the petition identical to the earlier Google filing and approved joinder without adding new grounds.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,646,042 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding on grounds of settlement and judicial economy.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00777, leaving the institution of Maxell's patent 11,017,815 B2 in place.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute Samsung’s IPR against U.S. Patent 11,017,815, alleging abuse of discretion on public‑accessibility findings, prior‑art status, and burden‑shifting. The petition also raises policy concerns over multiple petitions on the same patent.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on Patent 10,073,960. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential under §317(b).
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung, arguing the Board ignored Fintiv factors and misapplied §314(a) after a guidance memo was rescinded. The petition highlights parallel district‑court litigation and requests denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior‑art references are duplicate or cumulative and discretionary factors favor denial, given parallel district‑court litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the prior art does not teach the dual‑camera standby features and that discretionary factors favor denial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung opposes Maxell’s request to overturn the PTAB’s final written decision, asserting no inconsistency in expert testimony and accusing Maxell of strategic gamesmanship. The Board’s earlier findings remain unchallenged.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
ZF Friedrichshafen, its affiliates, and Nissan settled with Foras Technologies, leading to a joint motion to terminate the IPR over patent 7,502,958. The Board granted the termination and sealed the settlement agreement as business‑confidential.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR over Proxense’s Bluetooth proximity patent.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung seeks Director review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision finding Maxell’s claims unpatentable, arguing the Board ignored Samsung’s narrow “character” construction used in a district‑court jury trial. The Board denied the request, leaving the unpatentability findings in place.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
ZF Friedrichshafen, its affiliates, and Nissan have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to withdraw the IPR against Foras Technologies’ U.S. Patent 7,502,958.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
ZF Friedrichshafen, its affiliate, and Nissan have jointly moved to withdraw their IPR against Foras Technologies' vehicle safety patent, citing a settlement and early-stage status of the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00735, leaving the prior decision in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Broadphone, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. initiated a Petition challenging Broadphone, LLC's patent 8594698 at the PTAB. The petitioner argues that claim 23 is obvious over Spain-I when combined with Hunzinger and Nanda. This challenge relates to mobile location determination technology in wireless communications.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google challenges Proxense's patent claims in an IPR petition, arguing the technology is obvious over combinations of prior art references like Dua and Giobbi. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are merely well-known concepts applied to secure authentication systems.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google challenges Proxense's patent claims in a PTAB petition, arguing the technology is obvious over various prior art references. The petitioner contends that existing hybrid devices integrating secure memory and reader circuits render the claimed digital key/reader systems unpatentable.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google challenges Proxense's RFID authentication patents (8646042) in a Petition, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art. The petitioner asserts that existing technology discloses core elements of hybrid devices and proximity token systems. This proceeding is part of ongoing litigation between the parties.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
United Services Automobile Association filed an IPR challenging Auto Telematics Ltd.'s patent on telematics and driver monitoring systems. The petitioner asserts that all 27 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining multiple prior art references. This challenges the validity of a key technology in automotive safety and connectivity.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,017,815 owned by Maxell, Ltd., asserting unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The petition relies on multiple grounds combining various prior art references like Horn, Baumgartner, and Kaplan/Bryant to demonstrate that the claimed multimedia management features were obvious at the time of invention.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. filed a petition challenging the validity of the '958 Patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over Bigbee and Nguyen. The challenger contends that combining these prior art references would have been readily apparent to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Vectair Systems Inc. v.Fresh Products, Inc.
Vectair Systems Inc.'s IPR challenge against Fresh Products, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (102) or obviousness (103).
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.