US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 279 of 286 · 8,574 total
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes covering nine patents, leading the PTAB to terminate all related IPRs before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and KPN settled all patent disputes by executing a settlement, license and non‑assertion agreement that grants Samsung worldwide rights to KPN’s patents and ends the IPR proceeding.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and KPN have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 8,459,151, citing public‑policy reasons for early termination.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate a series of inter partes reviews covering multiple patents before any institution decision was made.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate nine inter partes review proceedings before any institution decision. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
The PTAB denied NVIDIA’s request for rehearing of its challenge to Neural AI’s patent, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution refusal.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics and KPN settled their disputes and jointly moved to terminate six inter partes review proceedings, including IPR2025-00512 covering U.S. Patent 8,881,235. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes before any trial began. The Board granted the joint motions to terminate nine IPRs and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before a trial was instituted.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00519, requesting the settlement be treated as business confidential information.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR over U.S. Patent 8,222,723 following a settlement of their broader dispute. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a Director Review request after the USPTO denied institution of multiple IPRs targeting iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The petition seeks rehearing and submits P‑TACTS requests to keep the challenges alive.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,244,284 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement for the 8,368,201 patent dispute confidential and only disclose it under strict conditions.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
The PTAB notified Amgen and Bristol‑Myers Squibb that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025‑00601 and IPR2025‑00602, setting a five‑day deadline for a limited response and prohibiting new evidence.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes covering eight patents. The Board terminated all IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,421,188 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, and the Board granted the termination before instituting a trial.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla and patent‑assertion entity Intellectual Ventures II have jointly moved to dismiss the IPR and terminate the proceeding after resolving the dispute in a parallel district‑court case. The motion cites Board authority and the early, unbriefed status of the IPR as reasons for dismissal.
RegenX Science Inc. v.NeXtGen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science and NeXtGen Biologics reached a settlement in a Chapter 11 case, assigning a non‑mammalian patent portfolio and providing cash consideration. The agreement releases all claims and dismisses related litigation, aiming to preserve estate value and satisfy creditors.
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science filed a bankruptcy motion to approve a settlement with Synogen and Nextgen Biologics that transfers ownership of a non‑mammalian tissue‑engineering patent portfolio. The settlement includes patent assignments, cash consideration, and mutual releases, aiming to end all related disputes.
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
A bankruptcy court approved a settlement between ISE Professional Testing & Consulting Services and Synogen Management Group, releasing all claims and assigning a non‑mammalian biotech patent portfolio. The agreement satisfies statutory settlement factors and includes cash payments and patent assignments.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. have reached a settlement in principle regarding patent 8,930,196. The parties filed a joint motion to stay all remaining court deadlines while they finalize their agreement and prepare dismissal filings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Mobile Data Technologies’ wireless‑communication patent 8,825,801.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board affirmed that Mobile Data Technologies enjoys strong settled expectations for its ’801 patent, keeping the denial in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,451,339, jointly moving to terminate IPR 2025‑00628.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board upheld the denial, emphasizing the patent owner’s strong settled expectations and lack of any material error in examination.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 8,793,336. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for an IPR covering a Mobile Data Technologies patent on mobile‑data technology. The petition argues the Board abused discretion, misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine, and ignored clear examiner error. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also highlighted.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the decision that had denied institution of Pantech’s patent 9,763,283. The denial leaves the institution denial standing.
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.