US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 184 of 291 · 8,722 total
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Fujifilm have reached a settlement-in-principle in their imaging patent dispute, seeking a stay of court deadlines and planning to dismiss the case.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple filed a response defending the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑32 of Varia’s RFID‑enabled mobile device patent are obvious. The company argues the Board correctly relied on intrinsic record and prior art, not on the patent owner’s functional‑emulation arguments.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple’s petition argues that the PTAB correctly found Varia’s RFID‑related claims obvious over Willgert‑Mooney, rejecting the patent owner’s construction and a Director Review request. The Board denied the request, leaving all 19 claims unpatentable.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Varia Holdings LLC requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found Apple’s RFID‑emulation patent claims unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on a new, unsupported “functional emulation” theory not raised in the Petition. The request seeks reversal of the unpatentability findings for all 19 claims.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Olympus have settled their district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Court decision.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International Industries and CasesTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,805,692 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and requests confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding and treat the settlement agreement as confidential.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,805,692 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, seeking termination of the proceeding.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,589,329 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon and other camera manufacturers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,451,339 and related patents. The settlement agreement is confidential under statutory provisions.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus, Fujifilm and others settled their IPR dispute with Optimum Imaging Technologies, jointly moving to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement-in-principle in a Texas district court case involving U.S. Patent 7,612,805. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and will file a dismissal stipulation.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle in their Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Olympus have reached a settlement-in-principle in the district court case tied to IPR2024-01373, requesting a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal. The agreement ends the PTAB challenge to patent 7,612,805.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Fujifilm have reached a settlement-in-principle in the district court case tied to IPR2024-01373, seeking a 60‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple filed a response defending the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑39 of Varia’s RFID‑related patent are obvious. The Board denied Varia’s request for director review, leaving the unpatentability decision intact.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Varia Holdings seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found all 39 claims of its RFID‑emulation patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on a new, unsupported "functional emulation" theory introduced only in the Petitioner’s reply. The request argues this procedural error warrants reversal.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple’s IPR against Varia Holdings’ RFID‑emulation patent resulted in a Final Written Decision finding all 32 claims unpatentable. Varia now seeks Director Review, arguing the Board relied on an unsupported "functional emulation" theory introduced only in the Reply.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon and other camera makers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 7,612,805. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under statutory provisions.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in the Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to file a dismissal stipulation. The dispute will be resolved without further litigation.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle in their Texas district court case, planning to dismiss the action after a 45‑day stay. The agreement ends the litigation over patent 8451339.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,175,148 and jointly filed a request to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and terminate the proceeding. The motion relies on statutory provisions for confidentiality of settlement agreements.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and ST CasesTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,589,329 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Court decision.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,175,148. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement documents as confidential, without deciding the merits.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
Simpson Strong‑Tie has filed a petition to have the PTAB institute review of U.S. Patent 11,920,339, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art hangers. The petition seeks institution of post‑grant review for all 31 claims.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all six claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,198, asserting that the MRAM‑related claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai and Soukup. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted given the ongoing district‑court litigation.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition challenging all eight claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,884,403 covering MRAM technology. The petitioner argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Bowen, Nagahama, Soukup and Sunai, and seeks institution of the trial.
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.