US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 172 of 291 · 8,722 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01431 after reaching a settlement, also requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,069,737 before any trial. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung filed an authorized response opposing Harbor Island Dynamic’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s final decision. The brief asserts the Board properly weighed evidence, did not abuse discretion, and that claim construction was unnecessary. The Director is urged to deny the review request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that cancelled all claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s TSV patent. The patent owner contends the Board erred by ignoring expert evidence, failing to construe a claim term, and inventing unsupported modifications to prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung Electronics and SiOnyx reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-01431 concerning patent 11,069,737 B2. The settlement agreement is kept confidential per statutory requirements.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including IPR2024-01402 covering patent 7,745,886, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its TSV patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial factors related to a pending district‑court trial date.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's petitions for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs, leaving the institution rulings in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving Samsung. The Board limited Samsung's response to five pages and five business days, prohibiting new evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on Harbor Island Dynamic’s semiconductor switching‑circuit patent. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied Fintiv precedent regarding the nearby district‑court trial date.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung filed an Authorized Response to the PTAB Director Review request, arguing the Board correctly weighed Factor 2 and should deny the review of Harbor Island Dynamic’s location‑services patent. The brief relies on extensive case law to show that a three‑month trial‑date delta only slightly favors discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic requested Director Review of IPR2024-01404 (and IPR2024-01402). Samsung has five business days to file a concise response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s ’886 SOI switching circuit patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Okashita, Yu, and Burgener. The petition argues that the Board should institute review and that denial is not warranted under Fintiv and §325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 55 claims of SiOnyx’s U.S. Patent 11,069,737 covering textured‑layer image sensors. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103 and asks the Board not to deny institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic’s ’609 patent covering through‑silicon‑via structures, arguing that all 18 claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Cooney, Dean, Farooq, and Chen.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 54 claims of SiOnyx’s ’737 image‑sensor patent, asserting anticipation or obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned for institution in its IPR against SiOnyx, LLC's patent (US 11069737). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits against both Haddad138 and Yap regarding image sensor technology claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent 9147609. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on technical arguments showing prior art (Cooney) discloses the claimed tapered hollow center in semiconductor vias.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned the PTAB against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent, leading to an institution decision. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of anticipation for claim 1 based on Okashita prior art and determined that combining structures would render other claims obvious.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103, primarily using prior art reference Cooney.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The Board issued a final decision finding that all challenged claims (19) were unpatentable. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness and anticipation based on combining prior art references in the field of SOI switching circuits.
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
Menard has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Signify’s configurable lighting patent, arguing that the CCT switch placement is obvious in view of several prior‑art patents. The petition seeks institution despite parallel district‑court litigation.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Portsmouth Network’s ’088 patent on bandwidth‑sharing routing, arguing obviousness over Dziong, Sathyanath and Jensen, and opposing discretionary denial.
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
The PTAB denied a request to vacate a Final Written Decision (FWD) because the Petitioner introduced new arguments regarding obviousness in its reply brief. The Board found that the initial petition lacked sufficient particularity to support the claims' unpatentability.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco Systems successfully argued that multiple claims of Portsmouth Network Corporation's patent were unpatentable over prior art references Dziong and Sathyanath, specifically regarding network routing and bandwidth allocation. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several key claims, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
The Final Written Decision found that most claims (1-7, 9-15, and 18-20) were unpatentable under § 103 based on prior art combinations. The Board affirmed the Petitioner's success in demonstrating obviousness over references like Chaimberg and Roberge for several claim groups. While some procedural issues regarding timeliness were resolved favorably for the Petitioner, the core finding was a rejection of broad claims due to anticipation and obviousness.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB rejected Cisco's IPR challenge against the '088 patent, finding no grounds for obviousness over prior art references Dziong and Sathyanath. The Board construed the key term "other connections" narrowly to mean established connections with allocated bandwidth, favoring the Patent Owner's interpretation.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Major U.S. carriers and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,094,868, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials seeks to block the PTAB Director's review of its successful institution of an IPR against SK Nexilis' 11,591,706 patent covering advanced material technology.
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.