US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 246 of 291 · 8,722 total
Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Garmin Ltd. challenges the validity of Clyde Analytics' '033 Patent in an IPR proceeding, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petition details multiple grounds combining Mooring and Satoshi with additional references like Lee, Louch, and Tam to demonstrate unpatentability.
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 15 claims in a traffic radar system patent (11,194,039) after finding the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness over prior art references like Aker and Thomas.
HL Klemove Corporation v.Foras Technologies Limited
HL Klemove and Foras Technologies have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 7,502,958, citing settlement and the lack of any merits decision. The Board is expected to grant the motion under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Apple was granted a PTAB order instituting inter partes review of all 20 claims of the ‘289 patent and joining the ongoing Google IPR. The Board found the petition identical to the earlier Google filing and approved joinder without adding new grounds.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,646,042 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding on grounds of settlement and judicial economy.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR proceeding.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,679,289 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion stresses settlement, early‑stage status, and judicial economy.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00777, leaving the institution of Maxell's patent 11,017,815 B2 in place.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR. The parties rely on 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related CFR rules to limit public disclosure.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute Samsung’s IPR against U.S. Patent 11,017,815, alleging abuse of discretion on public‑accessibility findings, prior‑art status, and burden‑shifting. The petition also raises policy concerns over multiple petitions on the same patent.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell filed a preliminary response urging denial of Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,017,815, arguing lack of merit, prior‑art duplication, and discretionary factors favoring denial.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on Patent 10,073,960. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential under §317(b).
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung, arguing the Board ignored Fintiv factors and misapplied §314(a) after a guidance memo was rescinded. The petition highlights parallel district‑court litigation and requests denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior‑art references are duplicate or cumulative and discretionary factors favor denial, given parallel district‑court litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the prior art does not teach the dual‑camera standby features and that discretionary factors favor denial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung opposes Maxell’s request to overturn the PTAB’s final written decision, asserting no inconsistency in expert testimony and accusing Maxell of strategic gamesmanship. The Board’s earlier findings remain unchallenged.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
ZF Friedrichshafen, its affiliates, and Nissan settled with Foras Technologies, leading to a joint motion to terminate the IPR over patent 7,502,958. The Board granted the termination and sealed the settlement agreement as business‑confidential.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR over Proxense’s Bluetooth proximity patent.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung seeks Director review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision finding Maxell’s claims unpatentable, arguing the Board ignored Samsung’s narrow “character” construction used in a district‑court jury trial. The Board denied the request, leaving the unpatentability findings in place.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s home‑networking patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards and ignored key Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell challenges the PTAB’s decision to institute Samsung’s IPR over its video‑management patent, alleging procedural abuse and improper burden shifting. The request seeks Director review to overturn the institution.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
ZF Friedrichshafen, its affiliates, and Nissan have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to withdraw the IPR against Foras Technologies’ U.S. Patent 7,502,958.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR and to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions. The parties seek Board protection of the agreement from public disclosure.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
ZF Friedrichshafen, its affiliate, and Nissan have jointly moved to withdraw their IPR against Foras Technologies' vehicle safety patent, citing a settlement and early-stage status of the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung, arguing the Board misapplied the Fintiv factors and relied on rescinded guidance. The petition seeks to deny institution and extend the filing deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO Director denied Samsung's request for a Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00735, leaving the original denial of institution in place.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00735, leaving the prior decision in place.
Vectair Systems Inc. v.Fresh Products, Inc.
Vectair Systems Inc. filed an opening petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,145,098 owned by Fresh Products, Inc. The challenge asserts that claims 1, 19, and 38 are anticipated (Section 102) or obvious (Section 103) based on various prior art references related to urinal screens and deodorizers.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Broadphone, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. initiated a Petition challenging Broadphone, LLC's patent 8594698 at the PTAB. The petitioner argues that claim 23 is obvious over Spain-I when combined with Hunzinger and Nanda. This challenge relates to mobile location determination technology in wireless communications.
HL Klemove Corporation v.Foras Technologies Limited
HL Klemove Corporation filed an institution petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,502,958 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner asserts that the patent claims are rendered obvious by combining prior art references Bigbee and Nguyen in the field of fault-tolerant processors.
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.