US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 263 of 291 · 8,722 total
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB held that Monolithic Power Systems proved all challenged claims of Greenthread’s 11,316,014 patent obvious over Kawagoe, Onoda and Nishizawa, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems successfully challenged Greenthread’s U.S. Pat. 10,510,842, proving all asserted claims obvious over prior‑art references. The Board affirmed the petition, rendering the claims unpatentable.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB held that all 22 challenged claims of Greenthread’s ’481 patent are obvious over prior art and thus unpatentable. Monolithic Power Systems successfully defended its position, while Greenthread’s privity and licensing arguments were rejected.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Greenthread files a Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit challenging the PTAB’s finding that 20 claims of its power‑management patent are obvious. The appeal focuses on alleged errors in obviousness analysis and claim construction.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Intent IQ, LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a petition challenging 18 claims of Intent IQ's patent (US 10,715,878) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claims are predictable combinations of prior art references like Baig, Laidlaw, and Xu in the field of cross-device tracking.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems challenged Greenthread's patent on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) in a semiconductor device context. The Petitioner successfully argued that the claimed graded dopant profiles were rendered obvious by combinations of prior art references, leading to institution.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems challenged Greenthread's semiconductor patent in an IPR proceeding, arguing that key claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted the challenge after finding compelling evidence of unpatentability based on prior art references including Kawagoe and Onoda.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems challenges U.S. Patent No. 10,734,481 in an IPR based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the semiconductor device claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references including Kawagoe, Onoda, and Nishizawa. The Board has instituted the case, finding compelling evidence of unpatentability.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842 in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argued that the claimed semiconductor device features were rendered obvious by prior art references including Kawagoe and Onoda. The Board subsequently instituted the petition for trial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Intent IQ, LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision rejecting the petitioner's challenge to claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10715878. The Board found that the evidence failed to demonstrate unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103, upholding the patent owner’s rights regarding targeted advertising methods.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco’s IPR against Video Solutions’ video‑encoding patent was instituted, but the patent owner seeks Director Review, alleging the Board ignored evidence, introduced new arguments, and misapplied the Fintiv compelling‑merits standard.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,425,817 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,425,817, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, seeking business‑confidential treatment separate from the public patent file.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco Systems and Video Solutions settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,649,426, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco and Video Solutions have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,649,426 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and the Board’s guidance favoring settlement.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco and Video Solutions jointly requested confidentiality for their settlement agreement and moved to terminate IPR2024-00695 concerning patent 8,649,426.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The Ridge Wallet and Mountain Voyage Co. settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,791,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board was urged to terminate based on public policy favoring settlement and the lack of any merits decision.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Capital One and Hulu filed an unopposed motion to keep their settlement with Implicit confidential and to end the IPR over patent 8,056,075. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One, together with Implicit, settled a dispute over a video‑streaming patent, prompting an unopposed motion to terminate the IPR.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267. They jointly filed a request to treat the settlement documents as business confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 and jointly request that the settlement documents be kept confidential, moving to terminate the proceeding.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
The PTAB denied Cisco's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00695, leaving the institution of the challenged patent claims intact.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00643 concerning patent 8056075. The Board has not yet ruled, but the motion seeks dismissal of the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO Director denied Amazon's request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nokia's patent 11,805,267. The order affirms that the institution decisions stand.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Chris Hoff of Barnes & Thornburg filed a Director Review request on behalf of VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD. after the Board instituted IPR2024-00695 against Cisco Systems. The owner contends the Board’s sua sponte arguments merit a higher‑level review.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One filed an unopposed motion to keep their settlement with Implicit confidential and to terminate the IPR over U.S. Pat. 8,056,075 covering web session management.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The Ridge Wallet and Mountain Voyage Co. settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,791,808, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after the parties jointly requested termination and sought confidentiality for the settlement documents.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 B2. The PTAB granted the parties' joint motion to terminate the inter‑ partes review and treated the settlement documents as business‑confidential.
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.