US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 26 of 291 · 8,722 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research files a response to Samsung’s request for Director Review, defending the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution and arguing the recission of the Vidal Memo was proper and lawful.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR into Cerence’s handwriting‑recognition patent, alleging abuse of discretion and statutory violations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review contesting the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR on patent 9,609,510. The petition alleges due‑process violations, APA breaches, and unconstitutional discretionary denial practices.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Petition for Director Review contesting the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00483, arguing that the agency’s retroactive policy change violated due process, the APA, and statutory deadlines.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung’s request for Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent was rejected. The Board affirmed its discretionary denial under § 314(a) after finding all Fintiv factors weighed against institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for a review of the earlier decision that refused to institute an IPR against Cerence’s patent 7,680,334. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its high‑Q passive RF component patent, alleging procedural errors, an erroneous priority claim, and misuse of the new “settled expectations” factor.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00457; Cerence may respond within five business days.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata Manufacturing’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR was rejected. The Board affirmed the Director’s discretionary denial, emphasizing a holistic assessment and the Fintiv factors.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
The USPTO Director denied Murata's request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00383, leaving the Georgia Tech patent intact.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of institution for Murata’s challenge to Georgia Tech’s ’914 patent, finding no legal error in the decision.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against a Georgia Tech RF amplifier patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and ignored strong merits and Fintiv factors.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google’s request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR on SoundClear’s 2015 noise‑reduction patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the petitioner failed to overcome settled‑expectations and the discretionary standards under 35 U.S.C. §314.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
The USPTO Director denied Murata Manufacturing’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR against Georgia Tech’s patent. The denial hinged on untimely filing and discovery burdens.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on SoundClear’s decade‑old audio‑processing patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations guidance, created an unlawful time bar, and ignored the merits and district‑court stays.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against SoundClear’s decade‑old echo‑cancellation patent. The petitioner contends the Board improperly created a time‑based bar and ignored the district‑court stays and merits of the petition.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google’s request for Director Review of an IPR against SoundClear’s LED‑notification patent was denied. The Board affirmed that settled expectations and Fintiv factors justified the discretionary denial.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for a review of the decision to deny institution of two IPRs against SoundClear Technologies’ patent 9,031,259. The order leaves the institution denial in place.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00344, leaving the institution decision unchanged.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google seeks Director Review of its IPR challenges to SoundClear’s patent, prompting a brief response window for the patent owner.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google seeks a PTAB Director Review of SoundClear’s echo‑cancellation patent; the Patent Owner has a five‑day window to respond without new evidence.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
Neurocrine Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Spruce Biosciences’ 12,115,166 patent covering a broad genus of CRF1 receptor antagonists for CAH, arguing lack of written description and enablement.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
Axon and Dedrone have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of Airspace Systems' UAV‑defense patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition also argues that institution is proper under the Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cerence’s U.S. Patent 7,680,334 covering handwriting‑recognition methods. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute the review.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of SoundClear's 9,031,259 patent covering noise‑reduction apparatuses, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references and seeking institution of the review.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink has filed an IPR petition against Barco’s 2024 video‑conferencing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier web‑conferencing systems such as Beel, Dinka, Van de Laar, and Kaplan. The petition argues the examiner missed material prior art and erred in patentability analysis.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2 and 4‑20 of U.S. Patent 7,489,914 on the basis of obviousness over prior art references Yeh, Dalmia, and Hashemi. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and requests institution of the trial.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata has filed an IPR petition challenging 19 claims of Georgia Tech’s 7,489,914 patent covering multi‑band RF transceivers. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over a combination of four prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.RightQuestion, LLC
AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RightQuestion's 2021 patent on automatic number identification, asserting that all 28 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Har and Miller.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed a petition for inter partes review of SoundClear’s 9,070,374 patent covering a simplex communication apparatus with visual feedback. The petition argues that all claims are obvious over IBM, Kale, and Li prior art and seeks institution of the IPR.
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.