US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 237 of 291 · 8,722 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia filed a joint motion to terminate four IPRs after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,950,469 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination saves resources and aligns with public‑policy goals.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes in an ITC investigation concerning OLED display modules, prompting a joint motion to terminate the case.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
Optronic Sciences requests Director Review of a PTAB decision, contending that BOE’s undisclosed state‑linked controller violates RPI requirements. The petition cites recent Director policy that makes such omissions fatal. The request seeks vacatur of the decision and termination of the IPR.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR disputes, leading the Board to grant withdrawal of pending Director Review requests for the three IPRs.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group opposes Optronic Sciences' Director Review request, asserting it is the only real party in interest and that BEH lacks control. The petition highlights PO's untimely filing and new arguments, seeking denial of the request.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR disputes over four wireless patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement documents confidential.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple has filed a request for rehearing, arguing that the PTAB abused its discretion in instituting an IPR on patent 10,547,648. The owners claim the Board relied on unmapped prior art and misread claim language.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences’ request to revisit the institution of six inter partes reviews filed by BOE Technology Group. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and held that the deadline for additional briefing had passed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia filed a joint request to treat their settlement documents as confidential and to terminate the IPR over patent 8,036,273.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over Nokia's wireless‑technology patent and jointly request that the settlement documents be kept confidential, asking the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,036,273 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 7,280,599 and have jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
BOE Technology Group opposes Optronic Sciences' request for Director Review, asserting that Beijing Electronics Holdings is not a real party in interest and that the patent owner delayed raising RPI issues. The Board’s prior rulings supporting BOE’s RPI identification are reaffirmed, and the Director Review request is urged to be denied.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have filed a joint motion to terminate the ITC investigation into OLED display modules, citing a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board is asked to end the case under statutory settlement provisions.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
Optronic Sciences LLC seeks Director Review to vacate the Board’s decision in IPR2024-01130, arguing that BOE’s disclosed controller, BEH, makes the RPI issue unresolved. The petition cites recent Director memoranda that shift the burden to the petitioner to identify all RPIs.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have filed a joint motion to terminate the ITC investigation over OLED display modules, citing a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,950,469, leading to a joint motion that terminated four related inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple seeks Director review to overturn a PTAB decision that found its HomeRF‑based cellular‑call routing patent obvious. The Patent Owners contend the Board introduced a new adaptation rationale not raised by Apple, violating procedural rules.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple’s petition argues that the PTAB correctly found the challenged WLAN routing claims non‑obvious, emphasizing that unclaimed details like transcoding are routine. The Director’s request for review was denied, leaving the Board’s decision intact.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences' request to reconsider the institution decision in IPR2024‑01133, finding no extraordinary circumstances despite recent guidance changes. The Board applied the Chief Judge’s and Director’s memoranda and upheld the original institution.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple filed an authorized response opposing the patent owner’s Director Review Request to vacate the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01048. Apple contends the Board correctly treated the method steps as order‑agnostic and that the prior art analysis remains sound.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Patent owners S.M.R Innovations and Y.M.R Tech have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute IPR2024‑01048 against Apple Inc. The request, submitted by lead counsel Cortney Alexander of Kent & Risley, seeks reconsideration of the institution.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences’ request to revisit the institution of six inter partes reviews, finding no extraordinary circumstances and that the deadline for further briefing had passed.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences settled three USPTO IPRs (01130, 01132, 01133) and withdrew their pending Director Review requests, ending further proceedings.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01048 concerning patent 10,547,648. The denial leaves the institution decision in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's patent on sub-pixel interpolation methods, arguing that the claimed technology is obvious over prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto. The petitioner asserts a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to combine these existing technologies to achieve predictable improvements.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging 51 claims of Nokia's U.S. Patent No. 7,280,599. The core dispute centers on whether the patent claims related to sub-pixel interpolation in video compression are obvious over prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia Technologies Oy faces an Inter Partes Review challenge regarding its video compression patents, specifically concerning sub-pixel interpolation methods. The petitioner argues that combining TML6 and Fandrianto renders the claimed method obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA). This proceeding centers on whether the combination of prior art references meets the 103 obviousness standard.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD successfully petitioned to challenge Optronic Sciences LLC's '733 patent, leading to its institution at the PTAB. The petitioner asserts that claims related to OLED/AMOLED pixel structures are invalid under 102 (anticipation) and 103 (obviousness). This moves the dispute into a detailed examination of prior art combinations in display technology.
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.