US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 167 of 291 · 8,722 total
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00890 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties argue good cause for termination.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung challenged EyesMatch’s AR‑mirror patent in an IPR. The PTAB instituted the review, and EyesMatch’s response argues that none of the cited references disclose the claim limitations under the narrow construction obtained in the district court.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their inter partes review of Nokia’s 7,532,808 patent. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, treating the settlement agreements as confidential. No merits were decided.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
EyesMatch Ltd. seeks Director review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found all claims of its imaging patent unpatentable. The Patent Owner contends Samsung and Google introduced new arguments and prior art in a reply, violating IPR rules and inconsistent claim constructions. The request asks the Director to reverse the decision.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon seeks a Director Review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against Nokia’s 7,532,808 patent covering a novel skip coding mode in video encoders. Nokia argues the Board’s obviousness findings are unsupported and misinterpret the patent’s terminology.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung Electronics and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,982,110 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and filed a joint request to treat the settlement documents as confidential. The parties seek termination of the proceeding while keeping the settlement details out of the public record.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Court decision.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,020,031 B1. The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google successfully opposed EyesMatch’s Director Review request, arguing consistent position and lack of procedural error. The Board denied the request, leaving the patent’s claims unaltered.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch settled the IPR over patent 8,982,110 B2, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding and seal the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom jointly filed a request to have their settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00847, leaving the institution of Nokia's patent 7,532,808 in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00810 concerning EyesMatch’s eye‑recognition patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung and EyesMatch settled the IPR over patent 8,982,110, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding for Samsung and seal the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung and EyesMatch have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §327 and related CFR rules.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Petitioner Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. challenges DexCom's '031 patent claims 23-46 in an IPR proceeding. The challenge asserts that the core inventive feature—using a priori information regarding sensor drift profiles—is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Zhang and Shin.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. has filed a petition challenging DexCom’s '031 patent related to Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) technology. The challenge asserts that the core inventive feature—using prior information to manage sensor sensitivity drift—is anticipated or rendered obvious by existing prior art references, Zhang and Shin.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia's '808 patent, asserting that its skip coding mode is obvious over existing prior art references. The challenge focuses on whether combining zero-motion vector (ZMV) and non-zero motion vector (PNZMV) modes constitutes a predictable combination of known techniques in video compression. This dispute involves complex technical arguments regarding standard-setting technologies.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed a petition challenging Nokia's video compression patent (7,532,808) at the PTAB. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious under Section 103 over prior art references including Karczewicz, Frojdh, and H.263. This action targets core technology related to motion estimation and coding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung filed a petition challenging EyesMatch's patent claims related to virtual mirrors and image processing, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge relies on combining various prior art references (e.g., Haan/Francois, Geisner/Lizee) to demonstrate that the claimed technology was predictable.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully secured institutional status in an IPR against DexCom, Inc., regarding continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Board found sufficient evidence that prior art references anticipate or render obvious key claims related to transcutaneous sensors and drift profiles.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against DexCom, Inc.'s glucose monitoring patent (11020031). The Board found sufficient evidence for trial on 22 claims based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art from Zhang and Shin.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims related to video compression and coding. The Board found that prior art references like Karczewicz and Frojdh, combined with H.263 standards, teach the claimed 'skip coding mode.'
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenged Nokia's video coding patent (7532808) at the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art references like Karczewicz and Frojdh. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims, supporting Amazon’s position on key skip coding mode limitations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to challenge EyesMatch Ltd.'s patent on virtual mirror/interactive display technology. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding claim 1, initiating an IPR proceeding against the core claims (1-18).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Board adopted the District Court's construction of 'mirror tracking mode,' which requires the user to see a reversed reflection at roughly double the distance while maintaining constant size. This decision involved complex obviousness arguments regarding adaptive transformation mapping.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs involving a Greenthread patent on power management circuitry.
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.