US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 223 of 291 · 8,722 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research filed a response defending the PTAB’s denial of Samsung’s IPR institution. The brief argues the Vidal Memo recission was proper, the change‑in‑position doctrine does not apply, and discretionary denial under § 314(a) is statutorily authorized.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield (Black Kite) and BitSight have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on BitSight’s ’331 patent. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the parties argue termination promotes efficiency and reduces costs.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01395 based on a settlement agreement, citing early-stage efficiency and lack of an institution decision.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate four inter partes review proceedings before institution. The Board granted the joint motion and ordered the settlement to remain confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung filed an authorized response opposing Headwater’s request for Director Review of the Board’s institution of IPR2024‑01407. Samsung contends the institution was proper, based on prior‑art disclosures and a correct Fintiv analysis, and that Headwater’s alleged prejudice is unfounded.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
ArcelorMittal seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR covering claims 1‑30 of its high‑strength aluminum alloy‑coated steel patent. The owner contends the Board abused its discretion by misapplying Fintiv factors, particularly Factor One and Factor Four, in violation of §314(a).
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
POSCO has filed an authorized response seeking Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal’s steel patent. The petitioner argues the Board’s reliance on Fintiv precedent and lack of overlap with parallel ITC proceedings makes institution improper.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
ArcelorMittal seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering claims 1‑25 of its high‑strength steel patent, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and should have denied institution.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
ArcelorMittal has filed Director Review requests for two IPRs, and POSCO has five days to submit a limited response without new evidence.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology opposes RAI Strategic Holdings' Director Review request, arguing that RAI introduced a new Fintiv argument after institution, contrary to USPTO guidance, and that the Board already addressed all raised issues.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed a rehearing request challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its 9,179,359 patent, arguing that the agency’s retroactive policy change and the new “Fintiv” framework violate due process and statutory limits.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research asks the PTAB Director to terminate Samsung's IPR after arguing the Board relied on a non‑petitioner theory and misapplied discretionary denial factors. The request targets the institution of claim 26 of U.S. Patent 9,179,359.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The patent owner seeks Director Review in IPR2024-01406; the Board limited the petitioner’s response to five pages and barred new evidence.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
RAI Strategic Holdings seeks Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Kangvape’s disposable vaporizer patent, arguing that a parallel ITC proceeding should preclude institution under the Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Court decision.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 9,070,133 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
ArcelorMittal and POSCO are engaged in Director Review proceedings for two IPRs. The Board has limited the petitioner’s response to five pages and barred new evidence. A deadline of five business days has been set for filing.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate four related IPRs before any trial was instituted.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01393 following a settlement agreement. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the parties argue that early termination saves costs and resources.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB sent an email confirming receipt of the patent owner's Director Review request and imposed a five‑page limit on the response, barred new evidence, and required filing within five business days. No additional briefing is allowed at this stage.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Intelligent Clearing Network settled their dispute over patents 9,070,133 and 9,098,855, leading the PTAB to terminate both inter partes reviews. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield Inc. filed a motion to terminate the IPR against BitSight Technologies' patent 10805331.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
POSCO challenges ArcelorMittal’s steel‑related patent in IPR2024‑01376, defending the Board’s decision to institute the case. The petitioner argues the merits are strong, overlap with parallel ITC proceedings is minimal, and the Board correctly applied Fintiv factors.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate four inter partes review proceedings before institution.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01394 over patent 9,438,615, citing a settlement and the early stage of the proceeding.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
The PTAB terminated IPR2024-01324 (patent 9,098,855) after Quotient Technology and Intelligent Clearing Network reached a settlement, filing a joint motion to end the review.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions jointly request that their settlement agreement be treated as confidential business information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions have entered a settlement agreement and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR on patent 9,098,855.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, asking the PTAB to restrict public access.
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.