US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 170 of 188 · 5,620 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Nokia’s U.S. Patent 8,050,321. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreements as confidential business information.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Cisco settled their IPR dispute with Cobblestone Wireless, filing the settlement as confidential and requesting termination of the proceeding.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
HPE and Cisco settled their IPR with Cobblestone Wireless over U.S. Patent 7,924,802, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia has filed a Director Review request asking the PTAB to vacate its decision to institute an IPR against its MPEG‑1 video‑encoding patent, asserting that the Board abused discretion because the prior art discloses the claimed identifier‑resetting feature.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Nokia’s video‑decoding patent. The Patent Owner contends the Board misapplied MPEG‑1 and Kim disclosures, which describe encoder outputs, not the decoder resetting required by the claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00691, leaving Nokia's patent institution intact.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patents (8,050,321) in an IPR petition, arguing that the claims are obvious over established standards like MPEG-1 and prior art references such as Kim and Yagasaki. The petitioner asserts that existing technologies render the core inventive concepts of the patent predictable.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
The PTAB institution decision upheld the Petitioner's challenge of nine claims based on obviousness in wireless communication technology. The Board accepted that prior art disclosures, including IEEE standards and Shearer, support the claimed dual-frequency transmission structure.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB granted institution for the patent covering video coding methods related to grouping image frames. The petitioner successfully argued that the claims are obvious over prior art references like MPEG-1, Yagasaki, and Kim. This decision sets a precedent regarding how standard technical specifications can teach complex encoding mechanisms.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Intent IQ, LLC
The Board granted Samsung Electronics’ motion to join an existing IPR against Intent IQ’s ’878 patent, instituting review of claims 1‑4 and 6‑23. The joinder was found timely and without prejudice, consolidating the proceedings with the Meta Platforms IPR.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Greenthread, LLC has filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit challenging the PTAB’s finding that multiple claims of U.S. Patent 10,734,481 are obvious. The appeal focuses on alleged errors in claim construction, obviousness analysis, and consideration of secondary factors.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB held that all 26 challenged claims of Greenthread’s ’222 patent are unpatentable as obvious, based on prior art references Kawagoe, Onoda, and Nishizawa. Monolithic Power Systems prevailed over the patent owner’s arguments on privity and licensing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Intent IQ, LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a petition challenging 18 claims of Intent IQ's patent (US 10,715,878) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claims are predictable combinations of prior art references like Baig, Laidlaw, and Xu in the field of cross-device tracking.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems challenged Greenthread's patent on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) in a semiconductor device context. The Petitioner successfully argued that the claimed graded dopant profiles were rendered obvious by combinations of prior art references, leading to institution.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems challenged Greenthread's semiconductor patent in an IPR proceeding, arguing that key claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted the challenge after finding compelling evidence of unpatentability based on prior art references including Kawagoe and Onoda.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems challenges U.S. Patent No. 10,734,481 in an IPR based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the semiconductor device claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references including Kawagoe, Onoda, and Nishizawa. The Board has instituted the case, finding compelling evidence of unpatentability.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Intent IQ, LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision rejecting the petitioner's challenge to claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10715878. The Board found that the evidence failed to demonstrate unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103, upholding the patent owner’s rights regarding targeted advertising methods.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco’s IPR against Video Solutions’ video‑encoding patent was instituted, but the patent owner seeks Director Review, alleging the Board ignored evidence, introduced new arguments, and misapplied the Fintiv compelling‑merits standard.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,425,817 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,425,817, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, seeking business‑confidential treatment separate from the public patent file.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco Systems and Video Solutions settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,649,426, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco and Video Solutions have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,649,426 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and the Board’s guidance favoring settlement.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco and Video Solutions jointly requested confidentiality for their settlement agreement and moved to terminate IPR2024-00695 concerning patent 8,649,426.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The Ridge Wallet and Mountain Voyage Co. settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,791,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board was urged to terminate based on public policy favoring settlement and the lack of any merits decision.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Capital One and Hulu filed an unopposed motion to keep their settlement with Implicit confidential and to end the IPR over patent 8,056,075. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267. They jointly filed a request to treat the settlement documents as business confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00643 concerning patent 8056075. The Board has not yet ruled, but the motion seeks dismissal of the proceeding.
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.