US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 173 of 188 · 5,620 total
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries and B&D Technologies jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations during an IPR.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display requests Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found Pictiva’s OLED claim unpatentable, arguing the Board ignored a jury verdict that upheld the claim and presented inconsistent claim‑construction arguments.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display argues that the Board’s obviousness findings for Pictiva’s OLED patent are sound and that no claim‑construction inconsistency exists, seeking denial of Pictiva’s Director review request.
PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v.National Nail, Corp.
PrimeSource Building Products and National Nail settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,378,218 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display has been given five business days to respond to Pictiva's Director Review request in IPR2024-01095, with a strict 15‑page limit and no new evidence allowed.
PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v.National Nail, Corp.
Court decision.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
Catalyst OrthoScience seeks a PTAB post‑grant review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness of the term “central channel.” The petition also asserts that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging KT IMAGING US, LLC's patent (8004602) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims related to integrated lens modules and image sensor structures are anticipated by combinations of prior art references like Imaoka/Seo and Ma/Wood.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent 10,632,815 regarding air-conditioned lawn mower cabs. The petition asserts obviousness based on combining prior art references like Toro Video and Judice to show that repositioning the A/C unit was a predictable design improvement.
PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v.National Nail, Corp.
PrimeSource Building Products filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,378,218 owned by National Nail, Corp. The Petitioner asserts that the claim is unpatentable under both 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness).
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc.'s Post-Grant Review petition against Shoulder Innovations, Inc. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a 'compelling merits' showing for either obviousness (103) or indefiniteness (112).
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s patent, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board focused on Ground IX, finding a reasonable likelihood that Claim 9 is unpatentable over Suzuki and Caldwell regarding OLED technology combined with touch sensing functionality.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The Board found several claims of the patent unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully argued that combining known OLED elements, such as specific dopants or encapsulation layers, would have been routine and predictable to a skilled artisan.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding seven claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The decision centered on the combination of prior art references in Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) technology, specifically regarding dopants and encapsulation methods.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T filed a Director Review Request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against ASUS. The petition cites improper weighting of Fintiv factors and failure to consider prior art.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology jointly moved to end IPR 2024‑00963 and asked the PTAB to keep their final settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T and other telecom carriers petition the PTAB Director to review a denied institution of an IPR challenging ASUS’s 5G‑related patent. They argue the panel misread prior art, ignored expert testimony, and abused discretion under § 314(a). The petition seeks reversal and institution of the review.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,701,321 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology entered a settlement that led to the termination of two inter partes review proceedings (IPR2024-00857 and IPR2024-00963). The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and partially protected the settlement documents as confidential.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB Director denied the petitioners’ request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving ASUS patents. The denial leaves the original institution denials in place.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Petitioners, including AT&T and Verizon, successfully petitioned to challenge 19 claims of Asustek Computer Inc.'s patent regarding physical layer procedures for CORESET management. The PTAB found compelling merits based on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). This institution sets the stage for a detailed technical battle over wireless standards implementation.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition, finding that the preliminary record did not present a compelling challenge to the patent's validity despite multiple grounds of obviousness. The Board relied on a holistic review of the Fintiv factors, ultimately favoring discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision was granted for the petitioner VusionGroup SA against Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.'s patent, covering object detection and video surveillance systems. The Board found that the prior art reference Bedros disclosed or suggested all limitations of Claim 1 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This decision allows the petitioner to proceed with invalidity challenges based on obviousness and anticipation grounds.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00853 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 seek to end the proceeding.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
Micron’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on a 3‑D memory patent was denied. The Board’s findings that the petitioner’s proposed modifications were inoperable and lacked motivation were upheld.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
Micron Technology petitions the PTAB Director to review a final written decision that upheld Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND flash patent claims. Micron contends the Board erred on obviousness grounds by demanding bodily incorporation, ignoring reply‑stage evidence, and misapplying anticipation standards. The request seeks reversal or vacatur of the decision.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking Section 317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the public patent file.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over DexCom’s glucose‑monitoring patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
The USPTO denied Micron Technology’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00791 (and the related IPR2024-00911). The order contains no substantive patentability findings.
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.