US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 18 of 188 · 5,620 total
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s U.S. Patent 9,208,423 covering mobile‑phone magnetic‑stripe emulation. Expert Henry Dreifus argues the claims are obvious over prior art Doughty, Bursch, and Fox. The petition is pending before the PTAB.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of the PTAB's decisions not to institute several IPRs against iCashe's patents. The order affirms the PTAB's original institution denials.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The petition argues that recent USPTO policy changes were made without required rulemaking and ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation, violating the APA and due‑process rights.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
iCashe, Inc. opposes Samsung’s request for Director Review of discretionary denials of seven IPR petitions covering patent 9,208,423. The patent owner argues the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memos and that Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and settled‑expectations arguments were insufficient to overturn the denial.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
Amazon and AlmondNet settled their IPR over patent 8,494,904 and jointly requested the Board keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a Director Review request after the USPTO denied institution of multiple IPRs targeting iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The petition seeks rehearing and submits P‑TACTS requests to keep the challenges alive.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
The PTAB held that all of the claims challenged by Amazon in IPR2022‑01436 are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering user profiling and ad targeting.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
Amazon and AlmondNet have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 8,494,904, which covers online advertising technologies. The Board is asked to end the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung and Sinotechnix settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,412,913 before the trial was instituted. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung and Sinotechnix have settled their OLED display patent dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2 and 3 of Resonant’s haptic‑feedback patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and seeking joinder with a related Apple IPR. The petition highlights favorable Fintiv factors and disputes the patent owner’s claim constructions.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 12 and 13 of Dialect’s 7,640,160 patent, arguing they are obvious over Maes, Coffman, and Ross references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 6 of Sinotechnix’s 9,412,913 LED‑package patent, asserting obviousness and anticipation based on five prior‑art references.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate dozens of claims of AlmondNet’s ’904 patent covering URL‑redirect based user profiling for targeted ads.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, finding sufficient evidence that several claims are unpatentable. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of a key time-based limitation in Claim 20 during the institution phase.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
Amazon successfully challenged the '904 patent, leading to its institution after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The challenge focused on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding automated profile collection and data targeting methods.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. successfully demonstrated obviousness against certain claims of Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent (8860337) in a PTAB Final Written Decision. The Board found that Claims 2 and 3 were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB held that Neurocrine Biosciences’ challenge to Spruce Biosciences’ ’201 patent succeeded; all 19 claims were found unpatentable for lack of written description under §112(a).
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB held that Neurocrine Biosciences' challenge succeeded; claims 1‑25 of Spruce Biosciences' ’908 patent were found unpatentable for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). The Board applied Ariad standards and rejected the genus claim.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
Neurocrine Biosciences has filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate Spruce Biosciences’ 11,007,201 patent covering CRF1 receptor antagonists for congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The petition alleges anticipation, obviousness, and lack of written description. Discretionary denial is contested.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
Neurocrine Biosciences has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Spruce Biosciences' U.S. Patent 10,849,908 covering CRF1 receptor antagonists for congenital adrenal hyperplasia, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and that prior art anticipates or renders obvious the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research filed a response to Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution. The patent owner argues the Vidal Memo recission was proper, the change‑in‑position doctrine does not apply, and discretionary denial is statutorily authorized.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung and HEADWATER reached a settlement, leading to a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00483 and related proceedings. The petitioner withdrew its request for Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR into Cerence’s handwriting‑recognition patent, alleging abuse of discretion and statutory violations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung’s request for Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent was rejected. The Board affirmed its discretionary denial under § 314(a) after finding all Fintiv factors weighed against institution.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its high‑Q passive RF component patent, alleging procedural errors, an erroneous priority claim, and misuse of the new “settled expectations” factor.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00457; Cerence may respond within five business days.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
The USPTO Director denied Murata Manufacturing’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR against Georgia Tech’s patent. The denial hinged on untimely filing and discovery burdens.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on SoundClear’s decade‑old audio‑processing patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations guidance, created an unlawful time bar, and ignored the merits and district‑court stays.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google seeks a PTAB Director Review of SoundClear’s echo‑cancellation patent; the Patent Owner has a five‑day window to respond without new evidence.
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.