US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 173 of 291 · 8,722 total
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Headwater Partners and major carriers have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,094,868 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' request for rehearing of its institution denial, finding the petition did not overcome the Fintiv factors, particularly the tight trial schedule. Institution of the IPR remains denied.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana and Veeva Systems settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-01443 and IPR2024-01444 before institution. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
Cyandia files a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on its notification‑method patent, asserting the Board’s claim construction is inconsistent with the district court and the patent’s plain language.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America successfully defended its IPR against Cyandia’s 8,751,948 patent, resulting in a Final Written Decision that found all 16 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board relied on a plain‑meaning construction of the term “determining a notification method.”
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
Cyandia filed an authorized response opposing SAP’s Director Review Request, asserting that the PTAB’s institution decision was proper and that SAP’s arguments were waived. The patent owner relies on Sotera, Motorola, and Dell precedents and highlights Fintiv factors favoring denial.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana and Veeva have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,391,937 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on institution or merits, and the parties seek to keep the settlement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found Samsung's challenged claims unpatentable. The patent owner alleges legal error in claim construction and factual error regarding the feasibility of the Gambino process. The request challenges the Board’s anticipation and obviousness findings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request in IPR2024-01405, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages, no new evidence, and a five‑business‑day deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on Harbor Island Dynamic’s semiconductor anchor‑via patent. The owner argues the Board misapplied Fintiv discretionary factors, especially the proximity of a parallel district‑court trial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic seeks Director Review of IPR2024‑01403, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision for a deep‑trench isolation patent, arguing the Board mis‑applied Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors. The patent owner contends the panel gave insufficient weight to the upcoming district‑court trial date and related investment.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Samsung and Headwater have filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, seeking Board approval to seal the document.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Samsung and Headwater have entered a settlement that resolves their disputes over U.S. Patent No. 9,094,868. They jointly move to terminate the inter partes review as to Samsung and request confidentiality for the settlement.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
SK Nexilis seeks a Director Review to keep its copper‑electroplating patent alive after the PTAB instituted an IPR. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and over‑relied on unsupported expert testimony.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana and Veeva settled their dispute over patents 9,055,023 and 9,391,937, leading the PTAB to terminate both inter partes review proceedings before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered confidential and kept separate from the patent files.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Court decision.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America challenges Cyandia’s notification‑method patent, arguing the Board correctly found no written description support for the dynamic alert step and that the owner’s 2008 provisional evidence is irrelevant. SAP seeks a Director denial of the owner’s review request.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The USPTO denied SAP America's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01433, leaving Cyandia's patent 8,751,948 B2 instituted.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
Cyandia challenges SAP’s institution of an IPR on its notification‑alert patent, asserting the Board ignored key prior‑art and misapplied written‑description analysis. The patent owner seeks director review to vacate the decision.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cyandia’s WebSphere‑related patent, arguing the Board’s reliance on speculative overlap and misapplication of Sotera precedent. The petition urges the Director to overturn the denial and institute review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung challenges a Director Review request by Harbor Island Dynamic over U.S. Patent 9,245,826. The response argues that the Board’s claim construction and obviousness findings were correct and that no Director Review grounds exist.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung's request for Director Review of PTAB institution decisions in four IPRs, including the 9,245,826 patent, was denied. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Court decision.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The USPTO denied SAP America’s request for director review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the challenge to Cyandia’s patent 8,751,948. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana and Veeva have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,055,023 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, which had not yet been instituted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Court decision.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America has been notified that Cyandia’s request for Director Review in IPR2024‑01433 is pending, with a tight five‑day response window and no new evidence allowed.
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, keeping the institution rulings intact.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Cyandia’s ’948 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over IBM WebSphere documentation combined with the Austin‑Lane publication.
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.