US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 283 of 286 · 8,574 total
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.
Petitioners and the patent owner jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreements as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). The request is presented as timely and compliant with the applicable statutes and regulations.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG SAUER and True Velocity settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,561,543, leading the Board to dismiss the proceeding before trial.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of an institution decision that allowed review of an expired Sandpiper CDN patent. The petition argues the Board ignored settled‑expectation precedent and that the petition fails the likelihood‑of‑success threshold.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of its IPR against Pantech's patent 9,288,824. The order applies to multiple related IPRs.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the PTAB’s discretionary denial of an IPR against OnePlus, keeping its LTE/5G patents intact. The Board found no examiner error or unpatentable prior art and affirmed the Director’s decision under § 314(a).
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google challenged Sandpiper CDN’s request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering an expired CDN patent. The Board affirmed institution, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for key claims and rejecting discretionary denial arguments. The case now moves toward a final written decision.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 10333768.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.
MIM Software and EXINI Diagnostics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,941,817 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR petition against Marlin Semiconductor’s ’880 patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC case. The Petitioners’ arguments about size and investment were deemed immaterial.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel filed a request for rehearing after the PTAB Director denied institution of IPR2025‑00795, arguing that a recent $8.9 billion U.S. government investment makes its Xeon processors vital to national security. The petition contends the Director misapprehended the briefing and seeks referral to a merits panel.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC filed a Director Review Request asking the PTAB to overturn a discretionary denial and refer its challenge to the ‘227 patent to a merits panel, citing national security, settled expectations, and material errors in issuance.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over a GPU clustering patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, leading the Board to end the proceeding.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel seeks rehearing after the PTAB Director denied institution of IPR2025‑00794, arguing that a recent $8.9 billion U.S. government investment makes its Xeon chips a national‑security priority and that the denial misapprehended this.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The exhibit summarizes PTAB IPR outcomes for TSMC, highlighting that about 42% of its challenged claims were found unpatentable.
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Inter IKEA Systems and Pointwise Ventures settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC opposes Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.'s request for a Director review of U.S. Patent 7,579,227, arguing the Board correctly exercised discretionary denial. The response highlights procedural deficiencies, meritless new‑facts claims, and unsupported national‑security arguments.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC seeks Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s 2018 semiconductor‑device patent, citing national‑security, public‑interest, and material‑error concerns. The petition argues the shutdown‑induced delay in the ITC makes referral essential.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB denied the petition for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs involving Taiwan Semiconductor and Apple versus Marlin Semiconductor. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes unchanged.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The Board notified the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00848 and IPR2025-00879. The Patent Owner may respond within five business days with a brief limited to the raised issues, and no new evidence is allowed.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
The PTAB denied AMD's request for rehearing of a Director's discretionary denial in IPR2025-00863, leaving the earlier denial of institution in place.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR challenging Marlin Semiconductor's 2015 FinFET patent. The petition emphasizes national‑security stakes, settled expectations, and alleged examiner errors. It also argues the ITC shutdown changes the Fintiv calculus.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s 2015 semiconductor patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC case. Petitioners TSMC and Apple’s arguments about size and investment were deemed immaterial.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple attempted to overturn USPTO denials of institution for Marlin Semiconductor patents, but the Board denied their Director Review requests, leaving the institution decisions intact.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The USPTO denied the Director Review requests filed by TSMC and Apple challenging the denial to institute IPR2025-00848 against Marlin Semiconductor's patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung and Hermes IP reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,855,720 covering a mobile device user interface.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,855,720 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The USPTO denied Director Review requests for four IPR institution decisions, including the challenge to Patent 9,093,473 owned by Marlin Semiconductor. Petitioners Taiwan Semiconductor and Apple’s bid to overturn the institution denial was rejected.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering a wireless communication patent (U.S. 10,568,113). The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion to terminate IPR 2025-00850 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’814 patent. The Board is asked to end the inter partes review and keep the agreement confidential.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and virtualization startup VirtaMove settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,519,814, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review.
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.