US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 177 of 291 · 8,722 total
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging and Rotolight settled their IPR disputes covering four patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries and Rotolight have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, requesting the Board to separate the documents from the public file.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging and Rotolight have settled their dispute over a lighting patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging and Rotolight settled their dispute over four patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPRs and keep the settlement confidential.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries and Rotolight Limited have jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2024-01423 after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy favors termination when parties settle.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging and Rotolight have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,845,044 B2 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure and Rotolight have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement materials confidential under federal law. The request cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) to limit public disclosure.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging and Rotolight have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement materials confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco N.V. filed a motion to seal portions of its Request for Director Review in IPR2024-01439, asserting that the material contains highly confidential licensing and financial information. The Board must decide whether the confidentiality interests outweigh the public’s right to a complete record.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Palo Alto Networks and Croga Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,223,601, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital’s IPR against a magnetic tunnel junction patent was instituted, but the patent owner seeks Director review to vacate the institution, arguing that piecemeal review of one of nine related patents is inefficient and contrary to AIA policy.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital filed an authorized response opposing IP Bridge’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01447. The company contends the request lacks any showing of error or abuse of discretion and should be denied.
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
ETN Capital and FBA Operating Co. settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,890,925 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board granted the termination, citing its policy of encouraging settlement.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco N.V. has requested Director Review of four IPRs involving Yealink’s challenge to U.S. Patent 11,422,951. The petitioner is limited to a 15‑page response filed within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco seeks reversal of the PTAB’s final written decision on its presentation‑dongle patent, arguing the Board wrongly discounted a multi‑patent license and commercial‑success evidence. The petition requests director review to reinstate the patent’s validity.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco has requested Director Review of four IPRs challenging its patent, and the Board has set a tight deadline for Yealink to respond without new evidence.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco N.V. moved to seal its Request for Director Review in IPR2024-01437, arguing that the licensing and financial information it submitted is highly confidential. The motion cites Argentum factors and prior PTAB decisions to justify sealing.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco has requested Director Review of four IPRs against Yealink. The petitioner must file a concise response within five business days, without new evidence.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Court decision.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco seeks reversal of the PTAB's Final Written Decision for U.S. Patent 10,762,002, arguing that the Board undervalued a key licensing agreement with Crestron and commercial‑success evidence. The petition requests Director Review to reinstate the patent's validity.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging and Rotolight filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate the documents from the public patent file.
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
The IPR concerning patent 10,890,925 was terminated after the parties reached a settlement. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to be treated as confidential business information.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging and Rotolight settled their dispute over four USPTO patents, leading the Board to terminate four IPRs before any merits were decided and to keep the settlement confidential.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Palo Alto Networks and Croga Innovations filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality protections and seeking to separate the document from the IPR record.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,701 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and partially approved confidentiality for the settlement documents.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 6,856,701 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 have settled their IPR over patent 6,856,701 and jointly request that the settlement documents be kept confidential, moving to terminate the proceeding.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio‑Rad has filed an IPR petition challenging Caltech’s ’921 patent covering multiplex PCR assays, asserting that the claims are fully anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Larson, Saxonov, and Silverbrook.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all four claims of U.S. Patent 8,405,134, which covers MRAM technology. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai, and Parkin, and challenges any discretionary denial of institution.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,737,372, which covers MRAM technology. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Bowen, Nagahama, Soukup and Sunai, and challenges the examiner’s earlier rejections.
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.