US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 23 of 291 · 8,722 total
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,803,836. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the three inter partes review proceedings and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies have settled IPR2025-01246. The parties filed a joint motion to seal the settlement agreement as business confidential information.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies settled their dispute over three patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the related IPRs. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
TankLogix has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of SitePro’s ‘184 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling equipment, arguing abstract‑idea ineligibility, obviousness over four prior references, and lack of written‑description support.
Meta Platform Inc. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sterling Computers' ’217 patent covering email relevance scoring. The petition relies on five obviousness grounds using Dumais, Kircher, Krug, and Marston references. No secondary considerations are asserted.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all nine claims of Paneltouch's 2016 touch‑panel display patent, arguing obviousness over the Nakamura and Hinata ’741 publications.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi Networks’ U.S. Patent 12,114,177, asserting that all 26 claims are obvious over earlier multi‑RAT systems disclosed in Chincholi and Clegg. The petition seeks institution of the review under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology files an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of Paneltouch's touch‑panel display patent, asserting obviousness over the Nakamura publication and, for claim 2, over Nakamura combined with Slobodin.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung successfully secured institution for its IPR against XiFi Networks' patent 12114177. The trial is currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
The USPTO Board issued mixed institution decisions across multiple IPR and PGR proceedings, granting trials in some cases while denying them in others based on likelihood of prevailing.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01245, allowing the trial to proceed on merits.
United Therapeutics Corporation v.Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. et al.
United Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 57 claims of Actelion’s ’847 patent covering macitentan‑PDE5 inhibitor combinations for pulmonary hypertension. The petition alleges anticipation by Bolli and obviousness over Bolli‑Keyser and Hoeper‑Morice references, arguing that secondary considerations are irrelevant.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope Technologies LLC
Belden, PPC Broadband, and Opterna have filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of CommScope’s ’417 fiber‑optic enclosure patent, asserting obviousness over Hogan, Walters, and Abel. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
United Therapeutics Corporation v.Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01139, preventing United Therapeutics Corporation from challenging Actelion's patent 8268847.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied institution for the IPR challenge against CommScope's patent 10996417.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01119 involving Belden Inc. et al. and CommScope Technologies LLC, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
The PTAB denied Google’s request to rehear its challenge to Cellular South’s facial‑recognition patent, finding no abuse of discretion. The Board held that the petitioner failed to raise a proper claim‑construction issue and that its new arguments were untimely and overly broad.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google’s request for Director Review of a PTAB denial of institution is challenged by Cellular South, which argues the Board correctly applied the settled‑expectations doctrine and exercised its discretionary authority under § 314(a). The response stresses that the arguments are not new and have been previously rejected.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
The USPTO denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00875, keeping the challenge against Cellular South’s patent alive.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google LLC has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR against Cellular South’s 9,940,972 patent. The petition argues that the Board’s “settled expectations” rule exceeds statutory authority and violates the APA, AIA, and due process.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
An email notifies parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876. It outlines a 15‑page response limit, a five‑business‑day deadline, and bars new evidence. The patent owner must respond within the stipulated timeframe.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Cellular South’s 11,126,853 patent covering video‑to‑data systems, asserting that all eleven claims are obvious under §103. The petition lists four grounds, each tying specific claim groups to prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google has filed an IPR petition against Cellular South’s 9,940,972 B2 “Video to Data” patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art references Fontana, Lau, and Arakawa. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
The PTAB denied Google's request to institute IPR against Cellular South's patent (11,126,853), finding the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
Cisco has filed a rehearing request after the PTAB director denied institution of its IPR on patent 11,106,824, arguing that a prior Sotera stipulation eliminates concerns of duplicate litigation. The petition cites Federal Circuit case law to support its position.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four related IPRs before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,233 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential as the proceeding is terminated.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317 and argues that no merits decision has been made. The Board is asked to end the proceeding.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo have reached a settlement covering the ’252 patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
The USPTO denied Cisco’s request for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial and institution denial in two IPRs involving QPRIVACY USA’s patent 11,106,824. The order upholds the earlier decisions.
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.