US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 280 of 286 · 8,574 total
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 9,922,348. The petition contends the denial was an abuse of discretion, citing unfounded settled‑expectations claims, factual errors, and examiner error. It seeks reversal and institution of the review.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility consortiums including PacifiCorp settled IPRs covering several power‑grid patents, resulting in the termination of the proceeding for two petitioners while the Board kept the case open for the remaining parties. The settlement agreement was designated business‑confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s petition for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ ‘348 patent intact. The Board emphasized settled expectations and the lack of new legal arguments.
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 involving Mobile Data Technologies’ patents.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy and BirchTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,933,370. The parties jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing settlement and lack of a merits decision. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent intact. The Board affirmed that settled expectations justified the denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.
This exhibit is a certified English translation of the settlement agreement between Dainese and Alpinestars dated Oct. 5, 2020, filed in IPR2025‑00750. It confirms the authenticity of the settlement for the Board’s record.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied a petition for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00611, which upheld Stratasys’s 3D‑printing patent. The denial applies to three related IPRs as well.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested PTAB Director Review for six IPRs, including the dispute over Audio Pod IP's patent 10,805,111. The patent owner may respond within five business days, but cannot submit new evidence. The Director will determine whether to grant the review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. jointly filed a motion to stay all court deadlines after reaching a settlement in principle. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and submit dismissal papers.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,933,370, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites settlement, lack of a merits decision, and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
Samsung Electronics seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its life‑signs detector patent. The petition alleges examiner error, improper reliance on settled expectations, and due‑process violations. A stay of the parallel district‑court case is also argued.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI and Amazon filed a joint motion stating they have settled the dispute and seek a 45‑day stay of court deadlines.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00697 and related proceedings. The settlement was documented via a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice filed in federal court.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
Tire Stickers LLC requests Director Review to vacate the PTAB's institution of an IPR filed by Revvo Technologies, alleging the petitioner gave conflicting claim constructions in the Board and district court. The request cites recent Director decisions requiring explanation of such inconsistencies.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Statistical analysis of PTAB IPR decisions from 2020‑2025 shows an increase in rulings that find at least one claim unpatentable, driven by both §102 and §103 grounds.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
Cerebrum Sensor Technologies files a Director Review petition to vacate the institution of an IPR against Revvo Technologies, alleging the petitioner’s inconsistent claim constructions and indefiniteness arguments violate the Director’s Tesla policy.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
Revvo Technologies files a response opposing Tire Stickers’ untimely Director Review request, arguing the Board has already institutioned the IPR and found no claim construction needed.
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00775, leaving Withrow Networks’ patent 10,771,849 B2 instituted.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal rules, limiting its disclosure to government agencies or parties with good cause.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review proceeding as to MidAmerican.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
Revvo Technologies seeks to reinstate an inter partes review of its automotive sensor patent, arguing that the Board’s earlier institution was proper and that its narrow claim construction is supported by the specification.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,032,111 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential. The motion cites statutory authority to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review involving WEC. The motion cites statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement, seeking Board approval to end the proceeding.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services terminated an IPR against U.S. Well Services after a Covenant Not to Sue was executed, leading the Board to dismiss the case before any claims were instituted.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony have moved to withdraw their IPR petition against SiOnyx’s patent, citing lack of opposition and the dismissal of related litigation.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and MidAmerican challenge a mercury‑control patent owned by MES, Inc., arguing that the PTAB, not the MDL, should decide its validity and seeking denial of the patent owner's Director Review request.
Skullcandy Inc. et al. v.Earin AB
Skullcandy’s petition to invalidate Earin’s wireless‑earbud patent was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach key claim limitations, so no reasonable likelihood of success was shown.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board terminated the proceeding on the parties' joint motion.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
Cerebrum Sensor Technologies opposed Revvo Technologies' petition, arguing that Revvo used inconsistent claim constructions across forums without justification. The Board affirmed the Director’s order vacating the institution, denying the petition.
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.