US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 254 of 291 · 8,722 total
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 11 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over combinations of prior art, specifically involving Chang and Jin for isolation regions in solar cells.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the decisions denying institution of four IPRs targeting Secure Wi‑Fi patents, leaving the institution denials in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024‑01368, leaving the earlier denial of institution in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial that applied retroactively after the Vidal memo was rescinded. The petition argues due‑process violations and arbitrary weighting of Fintiv factors. Samsung seeks to submit a Sotera stipulation and have the institution decision vacated.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request to overturn a PTAB institution denial that relied on a rescinded Vidal memo. The petitioner contends lack of notice of retroactive effect and arbitrary weighting of Fintiv factors, seeking to submit a Sotera stipulation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a Petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR on the ‘384 Wi‑Fi patent. The challenger contends the retroactive rescission of the Vidal memo and the Board’s Fintiv factor analysis violated due process.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Secure Wi‑Fi LLC defends the PTAB’s denial of institution against Samsung’s request for Director Review, arguing the Board’s discretionary analysis of Fintiv factors was proper and the petitioner’s new arguments untimely.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2024-01366, leaving the original denial in place. The order applies to four related IPRs involving Secure Wi‑Fi patents.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four related IPRs, including IPR2024‑01367 covering Secure Wi‑Fi’s patent. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung Electronics filed Director Review requests for four IPRs challenging Secure Wi‑Fi’s U.S. Patent No. 9,717,005. The PTAB Director instructed Secure Wi‑Fi to submit a brief response within five business days, prohibiting new evidence. The review decision is pending.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has requested Director Review of four IPRs involving Secure Wi‑Fi’s patent. The PTAB has limited the patent owner’s response to five pages and barred new evidence. The Director’s decision on the review is pending.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial that applied the rescinded Vidal memo retroactively. The petitioner alleges abuse of discretion and due‑process violations, arguing the Board’s weighting of Fintiv factors was arbitrary.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Secure Wi‑Fi LLC defended the PTAB’s denial of institution against Samsung’s request for Director review, arguing the Board’s use of Fintiv factors was proper and the petitioner’s new arguments untimely. The Board’s decision stands.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’384 patent covering fake MAC address techniques. The petition relies on obviousness over Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Yun, Satish and Jalfon. No discretionary denial is requested.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 10‑28 of Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’552 patent. The challenger relies on a combination of Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Orava and Yun (and Kholaif for claims 24‑28) to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Samsung also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted given parallel district‑court litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung petitions an IPR to invalidate 17 claims of Secure Wi‑Fi’s 9,717,005 Wi‑Fi connection patent, asserting obviousness over Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Orava and Yun.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’552 patent covering Wi‑Fi connection methods. The petition argues that claims 1‑9 are obvious over Vardi, the IEEE 802.11 standard, Orava and Yun, and opposes any discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung's IPR petition against Secure Wi-Fi LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board determined that the proximity to a parallel district court trial date weighed heavily in favor of discretionary denial under Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition due to concerns over parallel district court litigation and duplicative efforts. The Board found that the central technical issue remained identical, despite petitioner concessions regarding trial timing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung Electronics' IPR challenge against Secure Wi-Fi LLC was denied by the PTAB, despite arguments regarding prior art and claim scope. The Board based its decision on a holistic application of Fintiv factors, finding that the likelihood of trial before the statutory deadline outweighed other considerations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung Electronics sought to invalidate Secure Wi-Fi LLC's patent (9717005) via IPR, alleging obviousness in Wi-Fi network security claims. The PTAB denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), finding that factors weighed against proceeding despite the petitioner's arguments.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against ASUS. The petition contends the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, ignoring prior art and POSITA testimony.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless have settled their dispute over a multicast patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties cite public policy and statutory authority to end the review.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia jointly moved to terminate an IPR over Active Wireless's 5G PUCCH patent after reaching settlement agreements with the patent owner. The Board was asked to end the proceeding because the merits had not yet been decided and public policy favors settlement.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless have filed a joint motion to keep their 5G patent settlement materials confidential under applicable statutes. The request cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) and argues it is timely.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision, arguing the Board misapplied obviousness law on two grounds involving Kurashina/Sato and Murade‑109/Murade‑125 references. The petitioner contends that universal motivations and known techniques provide sufficient motivation to combine the references.
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.