US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 276 of 286 · 8,574 total
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
An email from the PTAB Director informs the parties that a Director Review request has been filed for IPR2025-00363 and related cases, outlining a five‑page, five‑day response window and prohibiting new evidence.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to rehear a Director’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00365 covering Mullen’s 2022 patent. They contend the Board ignored the Vidal Memo’s guidance, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed the rules, leaving 92 claims unchallenged in district court.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung and Sinotechnix settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,951,626. The Board terminated the proceeding before trial was instituted and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla challenges Intellectual Ventures’ IPR on patent 6,894,639, arguing the Board correctly applied claim construction and prior art. The Director is urged to deny the patent owner’s request for review, leaving the institution intact.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung Display’s IPR petition was denied by the PTAB after a Director Review affirmed the Board’s discretionary denial, despite correcting the Board’s statutory analysis of the prior art.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request for rehearing and refused to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ patent, citing the parallel district court trial and discretionary authority. The decision rests on six Fintiv factors and the weakness of the petition’s merits.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung and Sinotechnix have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,951,626 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, so the motion is pending.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla’s petition to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 7,181,743 was denied after the Board found no abuse of discretion. The Board held that the prior‑art reference Welch does not disclose the claimed event‑correlation capabilities.
MOTORTECH GmbH et al. v.--
MOTORTECH filed an unopposed motion asking the PTAB to treat its settlement with Altronic as business‑confidential information and keep it separate from the IPR record. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and seeks limited access to the settlement documents.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Skyworks seeks affirmation of the PTAB Director's denial of institution for an IPR filed by Kangxi over a wireless front‑end patent. The Patent Owner emphasizes the six Fintib factors and its settled expectations of validity to argue against institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung has submitted Director Review requests for three IPRs challenging Cerence’s patent. The PTAB has limited the patent owner’s response to a 15‑page brief with no new evidence.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Patent Owner seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against its battery‑electrolyte patent. It contends that the Petition forfeited challenges to claims 20‑26 and that ten of the raised grounds are fatally flawed, making institution an inefficient use of resources.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia settled their IPR with Headwater Partners over patent 9,413,502, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s discretionary denial of five IPR petitions, arguing the new ‘settled expectations’ rule was applied retroactively and violates precedent. The petitioner contends the rule would burden the PTAB and harm patent quality.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex Technology’s battery electrolyte patent in IPR2025‑00405. The petitioner argues the Board correctly instituted the IPR and that the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial should be denied. Prior art references disclose the claimed electrolyte components.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard’s IPR challenge to Medline Industries’ patent 11,661,220 was terminated after the parties settled before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
Samsung successfully challenged all 16 claims of Molecular Rebar Design’s ’282 patent covering carbon‑nanotube binders for batteries. The Board found the claims obvious over prior art and adopted a construction that “discrete” does not require non‑attachment.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and Birchtech Corp have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,589,225 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review involving WEC Energy Group. The motion cites settlement, lack of a merits decision, and public‑policy benefits.
Amazon.com et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and NL Giken settled their inter partes review dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The PTAB Director denied institution of iRhythm's IPR against Welch Allyn's cardiac monitor patent. The patent owner’s response argues the denial was proper, citing lack of evidence and procedural compliance.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Kangxi Communications seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against Skyworks’ RF front‑end patent, alleging due‑process violations from retroactive policy changes. The petition contends that the Board improperly applied new Fintiv and “settled expectations” doctrines, and that the withdrawal of prior‑art defenses from a parallel ITC case should not trigger denial.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
Dabico Airport Solutions has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPR against AXA POWER APS’s ‘169 patent. The petitioner argues the Director improperly applied a new “settled expectations” discretionary denial standard without notice. The request seeks vacatur of the decision or additional briefing.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB Director has issued a review request for IPR2025-00438, directing the petitioner to file a concise response limited to the raised issues and prohibiting new evidence.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317. The request emphasizes protection of settlement amounts and private banking information.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The USPTO denied Cambridge Industries' request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00433, leaving the original denial in place.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,045,101, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,178,104 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech jointly moved to have their settlement agreements treated as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board is asked to keep the agreements separate from the public patent file.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy and patent owner BirchTech jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential and terminate the IPR, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and PacifiCorp filed a joint motion to end their IPR against BirchTech Corp., seeking to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
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.