US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 212 of 291 · 8,722 total
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Procter & Gamble seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s finding that its aluminum‑free deodorant stick patent is obvious. The company argues the Board misinterpreted claim 15’s hardness test and failed to show a motivation to combine disparate prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and ASUS have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,291,052 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy favors termination after settlement.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenges P&G's deodorant stick patent, arguing the claims are obvious over known formulations and that P&G's RPI arguments fail. The Board’s prior findings support the petitioner's position, and the request for director review should be denied.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,233,978, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before trial.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the review of patent 9,586,659. The settlement agreement was kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC argues that the PTAB correctly found the challenged deodorant stick claims obvious and that the patent owner’s request for Director Review should be denied. The response emphasizes proper claim construction, prior‑art teachings, and complete RPI disclosure.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,233,978 before trial. The Board granted a Joint Termination Motion and dismissed the petitions.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Procter & Gamble requests PTAB Director Review to overturn a decision that found its natural deodorant patent obvious. The company alleges the Board misapplied an extrinsic hardness test, ignored motivation to combine prior art, and the petitioner failed to disclose all real parties in interest.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,814,170 before the Board could institute a trial. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, which the PTAB granted, dismissing the petitions.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,814,170 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the case, and the parties cite judicial economy for the termination.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,103,640, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR before institution.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
An email notifies that the PTAB has received a Director Review request in IPR2024-01083 and outlines strict response limits for Apple.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,814,170. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding before institution, keeping the settlement confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple submits an authorized response opposing Smith Interface Technologies' Director Review request, asserting that the PTAB correctly found motivation to combine prior art references. The brief emphasizes that Smith’s arguments mischaracterize the combination and lack undisputed technical evidence.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB's Final Written Decision that found its UI‑menu patent obvious. The patent owner argues the Board lacked a proper motivation analysis for combining the Ahn and Hinckley references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and ASUS settled four inter partes review proceedings before any trial began. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Pictiva Displays has filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung Display’s ‘164 patent, arguing the Board ignored a full Fintiv analysis after a guidance memo was rescinded.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and Asus 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.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,233,978 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO have settled their dispute over Patent 7,233,978 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and data‑storage startup Kove IO have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,814,170 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,103,640 before the Board instituted a trial. The joint termination motion was granted, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted the joint motion and kept the settlement confidential.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,103,640 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless, LLC
The IPR over Cobblestone Wireless's patent 7,924,802 was terminated after the parties reached a settlement. A joint motion to dismiss was filed and granted, ending the proceeding before institution.
FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.
FormFactor and Technoprobe settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,035,885 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Procter & Gamble has requested a Director Review of the IPR against Dr. Squatch, limiting the petitioner’s response to 15 pages and prohibiting new evidence.
FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.
FormFactor and Technoprobe have settled their IPR dispute over a probe‑card patent. They jointly request that the settlement agreement be treated as confidential business information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless, LLC
T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Nokia and Ericsson settled the IPR against Cobblestone Wireless’s 7,924,802 patent and asked the PTAB to keep the settlement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
FormFactor, Inc. v.Technoprobe S.p.A.
The IPR concerning patent 11,035,885 was terminated after the parties settled following institution.
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.