US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 282 of 286 · 8,574 total
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks successfully challenged 15 claims of the ’827 patent, finding them obvious over the OceanStore system. Anticipation arguments failed, and the Board adopted broader claim constructions that still rendered the claims unpatentable.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals and Atossa Therapeutics filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317 and to terminate the pending IPR on patent 11,261,151.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks successfully challenged U.S. Patent 8,275,827, leading the PTAB to find all 14 challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation by the Carter reference and obviousness over Carter and Pitzel.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, while keeping the settlement agreements confidential. Generac Power Systems remains as the sole petitioner in the related proceedings.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
The Director denied Intel’s request for rehearing of the discretionary denial and institution decision in IPR2025-00794, leaving the patent challenge uninstated.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule that led to a discretionary denial of institution for their IPR petition covering patent 10,091,266.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The USPTO denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of multiple IPRs involving Audio Pod IP’s patents. The denial applies to all listed proceedings.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The Director denied Google’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00806, leaving the Sandpiper CDN patent institution intact.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,012,252 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
Henri Daussi, LLC and ECNA, LLC filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00807 after reaching a settlement, ending the Board proceeding without a final written decision.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
The USPTO Director denied Belden's request for review of the earlier decision denying institution of CommScope's patent 9,266,697. The denial upholds the original institution refusal.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,908,508, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review that had been instituted earlier in the year.
Docker Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Docker Inc. and Intellectual Ventures II LLC settled their inter partes review disputes before trial, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPRs. The settlement covered three patents and the agreements were treated as confidential business information.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑device patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Acting Director properly exercised discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
The Director denied Intas Pharmaceuticals' request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00799, leaving Atossa Therapeutics' Patent 11,261,151 in place.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
Henri Daussi, LLC and ECNA, LLC settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,398,791 B1 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review before the Board instituted the trial. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
The PTAB granted the parties’ joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential after the IPR was terminated by mutual agreement.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The ITC investigation into switchable‑connectivity phones and tablets was terminated after Ericsson and Apple reached a settlement, prompting the Commission to dismiss the case without further review.
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Apple and Sony moved to withdraw their IPR petition against SiOnyx’s 9,064,764 patent. The patent owner did not oppose, and the Board is expected to terminate the proceeding at the pre‑institution stage.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the PTAB's decision denying institution of multiple IPRs against Audio Pod IP's patents. The order confirms the institution denial remains in effect.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
In IPR2025-00829, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding at least one claim of U.S. Patent 7,923,764 unpatentable. The challenger TSMC and patent owner Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC presented arguments under §§102/103, resulting in a mixed outcome.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
GE Healthcare and Johns Hopkins University jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00808 concerning patent 11,938,201. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding without prejudice and allowing future filing.
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
Withrow Networks seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its adaptive streaming patent. The patent owner contends the Board misinterpreted claim language and improperly relied on prior‑art references that do not teach the required combination of fluidity, video quality, audio quality, and optimized decoding.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The USPTO Director denied Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing’s request for review of the institution decisions in five related IPRs, keeping the institution denials against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC in place.
Valneva Austria GMBH v.Takeda Vaccines, Inc.
Valneva Austria and Takeda Vaccines jointly moved to terminate an IPR covering 67 vaccine‑related claims. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition without a merits decision.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule that barred its IPR petition on patent 9,319,720. The petition argues the rule violates the APA, the Constitution, and the AIA. The Board is asked to reverse the discretionary denial.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
The USPTO Director denied Cisco’s petition for rehearing of the decision that refused to institute IPR2025‑00836 against QPRIVACY USA LLC’s patent 11,816,249. The denial leaves the patent unchallenged.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon sought Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent. Audio Pod’s counsel argues the denial was proper under the settled‑expectations doctrine and that no APA or due‑process violations exist. The Board has yet to rule on the review request.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a decision that denied institution of an IPR against Pantech’s 4G/5G random‑access patent, arguing the Board misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and ignored examiner error. The request highlights the large, diverse patent portfolio in parallel district‑court litigation as a factor against discretionary denial.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and cloud‑migration startup VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreement to remain 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.