US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 284 of 286 · 8,574 total
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion seeks to keep the agreement separate from the public patent file and restrict access.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The USPTO denied Sun Pharmaceutical's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00893, leaving the original decision that the IPR would not be instituted unchanged.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,462,767 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties argue the agreement contains highly sensitive information that could harm their businesses if disclosed.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google’s request for director review of a denied PTAB institution is challenged by Cellular South, which argues the request merely recycles previously rejected arguments about the “settled expectations” doctrine. The patent owner urges the Board to uphold the discretionary denial.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
Amazon and Datonics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,984,445 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR challenging Marlin Semiconductor’s 2015 metal‑oxide semiconductor transistor patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC investigation. TSMC and Apple’s arguments about size and investment were deemed immaterial.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’814 virtualization patent, prompting a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
In IPR2020‑00944, the PTAB held that 22 of the 23 claims of The Noco Company's jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding the claims anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. Claim 11 survived.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries and Oak IP filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00889 after reaching a settlement, citing that the Board has not yet instituted the review and all disputes are resolved.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and cloud‑migration startup VirtaMove settled their inter‑partes review dispute before trial, leading the Board to terminate the IPRs and keep the settlement confidential.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPRs, arguing the USPTO’s “settled expectations” rule violates the APA, AIA, and due‑process rights.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google’s request for Director Review of a PTAB denial of institution is challenged by Cellular South, which argues the Board correctly applied the settled‑expectations doctrine and exercised its discretionary authority under § 314(a). The response stresses that the arguments are not new and have been previously rejected.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of the Director's discretionary denial and institution decision in IPR2025-00977 and related cases.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus requests Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR, alleging Samsung broke its Sotera‑type stipulation by planning to use the same prior art in district‑court litigation. The Board had previously denied discretionary denial based on Samsung’s promise.
uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 1 and 3–5 of Force MOS’s 7,812,409 patent unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Hshieh, while claims 2 and 6 remained patentable.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
The PTAB denied Google’s request to rehear its challenge to Cellular South’s facial‑recognition patent, finding no abuse of discretion. The Board held that the petitioner failed to raise a proper claim‑construction issue and that its new arguments were untimely and overly broad.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent (U.S. 10,951,271). The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that termination serves public policy.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple seek a director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s 2015 semiconductor‑device patent, citing national‑security, settled‑expectations, and material examiner errors. They argue the government shutdown alters the Fintiv calculus, making referral appropriate.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus Institute requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Samsung’s Wi‑Fi BSS‑color patent, arguing the Board misinterpreted prosecution statements and ignored key arguments about the Lee and Choudhury references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of institution decisions in multiple IPRs, leaving the institutions in place.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, citing business‑confidential treatment under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit access to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of claims 1‑11 of the ’203 battery‑charger patent and granted ADC Solutions Auto LLC’s motion to join the existing Deltran IPR, assigning it an understudy role.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,852,846. The order provides no further substantive analysis of the patent claims.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its LTE‑5G random‑access patent (U.S. 8,995,372) against Pantech. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and violated the APA, and points to examiner error involving Tenny and Yoo references.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the PTAB Director’s discretionary denial of institution for its LTE/5G patent, arguing lack of obviousness and settled industry expectations. The Board affirmed the denial, leaving the patent intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung and Hermes IP Management settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,613,060 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the parties' motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,613,060 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and cites public‑policy reasons for settlement.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and patent owner Advanced Cluster Systems have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 12,021,679. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues termination is appropriate before any merits are decided.
Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart v.Fall Line Patents, LLC
The PTAB found claims 1,2,5,19‑22 of the ’748 patent unpatentable for obviousness over prior art, while claim 7 remained patent‑eligible.
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.