US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 277 of 286 · 8,574 total
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. and HydraFacial LLC settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate both IPRs before institution. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related Board rules to limit public disclosure.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a Director rehearing request after the PTAB denied institution of five IPRs against Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,419,996. The petition seeks reversal of the discretionary denial under § 314(a) and notes concurrent P‑TACTS filings.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
The PTAB denied Dabico Airport’s request for Director Review of a denied institution decision, leaving AXA Power’s patent in force.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00413 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 9,045,101. The Board had previously instituted the review, but the parties seek early termination to conserve resources.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
AXA Power defends the USPTO Director's discretionary denial of Dabico's IPR petition, arguing the Director acted within broad authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and applied a holistic assessment. The Patent Owner contends the petitioner misapplies the review standard and seeks denial of the request for Director Review.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex Technology's lithium‑ion battery patent, arguing that the claimed electrolyte ratios and electrode compaction ranges are obvious in view of Zeng, Sunose, Matsuoka, Kim and other references. The petitioner seeks a finding that all 17 claims are unpatentable.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility affiliates of Berkshire Hathaway Energy settled multiple PTAB IPRs, leading to the termination of the cases for the settling parties while the Board kept the proceedings open for the remaining petitioners.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
The PTAB Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00493 concerning patent 7,502,348. The decision upholds the earlier refusal to institute the IPR.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,668,430, prompting a joint motion to terminate the IPR for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light.
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,668,430 and jointly request the PTAB keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. requests Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 10,668,430 patent, arguing the case should be handled in an existing MDL and that the Board misapplied the privity analysis under 35 U.S.C. §315(b).
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. and WEC Energy Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,589,225, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that no merits decision has been rendered.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of PTAB institution denials in three IPRs involving Cerence’s patent were denied, leaving the institution decisions intact.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates challenge Birchtech's patent on mercury control, arguing the PTAB is the proper forum and that the Director’s review request should be denied. The petitioners contend there are no settled expectations, no time‑bar issues, and no undisclosed parties influencing the case.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00445 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,550,052. The Board has not issued a final decision, and the parties request dismissal of the proceeding.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR against the ’430 patent for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light following settlements with BirchTech. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317 and public policy favoring settlement.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,736,729 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and WEC Energy Group filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement with Birchtech Corp. confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to limit public access to the agreement, citing Board rules and regulations.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway’s MidAmerican Energy and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over a emissions‑control patent, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates contest the patent owner’s request for a director review of the IPR, arguing the PTAB is the proper forum and that the petitions are timely and unencumbered by third‑party interests.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings, LLC filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s Director Review Request in IPR2025‑00447. The response argues Samsung introduced new, unauthorized arguments and lacks merit on due‑process and APA grounds. The Board’s institution decision is portrayed as consistent with USPTO guidance.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung filed a Director review request after the USPTO denied institution of its IPRs against Vasu Holdings. The email cites concurrent P‑TACTS filings and asks the Director to overturn the denial.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements with IPL and WPL confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreements as business confidential information.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPRs covering U.S. Patent 10,368,281. The petition argues that the Board’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due‑process and the APA, and that the Board failed to consider Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation. Samsung seeks reinstatement of the petitions for a merits panel.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google seeks rehearing of the PTAB Director's discretionary denial of institution for an IPR against VirtaMove's 14‑year‑old patent, arguing the Director exceeded statutory authority and violated the APA.
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.Keyless Licensing LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs involving Keyless Licensing’s patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,976,922. The Board affirmed the earlier denial of institution.
Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,593,458 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to treat the settlement agreement 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.