US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 285 of 286 · 8,574 total
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00888 and related cases, upholding the original decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung’s request to delay IPR institution by invoking recent Director Review rulings was denied. Wilus sought a short deadline extension to submit new evidence, while Samsung wanted a longer pause pending district‑court claim constructions. The PTAB emphasized statutory timing limits.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
The USPTO denied Volkswagen’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute the IPR against Longhorn Automotive’s patent 8,085,192.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2025-01003 (patent 9,729,907) and IPR2025-01041, leaving the institution denials intact.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of IPR 2025‑01003 was rejected. The Deputy Director’s use of the settled‑expectations standard and discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) was upheld, leaving Audio Pod’s patent in force.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of a Director's discretionary denial in IPR2025-00973 involving patent 9,462,411. The Board affirmed its earlier decision not to institute the IPR.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron seeks director review of a PTAB denial to institute an IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent, arguing examiner error, improper settled‑expectations reliance, and national‑security stakes.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron requests a Director Review to overturn the PTAB's denial of institution for an IPR against its DRAM patents, citing national‑security importance, examiner error, and improper reliance on settled expectations.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron requests PTAB Director review of a denied institution for IPR against Palisade’s 9,281,314 memory‑chip patent, citing national‑security stakes, examiner error, and Fintiv factors. The petition argues the Board’s settled‑expectations analysis is misplaced.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a denied institution of IPR 2025‑01009, arguing that the Board ignored national‑security stakes and relied improperly on patent age. The request cites examiner errors and Fintiv factors supporting institution.
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 promise not to use petition prior art in district‑court litigation. The dispute centers on prior‑art duplication across related patents.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑01068 before the Board could institute the review. The PTAB granted the motion, ending the proceeding and treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
In IPR2020‑01207, the PTAB held that Samsung’s challenger proved that 11 of the 14 asserted claims of the ’395 patent are anticipated by the prior‑art Grupp ’483 reference, rendering them unpatentable, while three claims remained patent‑eligible.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Intel jointly request that their settlement with Advanced Cluster Systems be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion cites statutory authority to treat the agreement as business confidential information.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Sandpiper CDN's patent 10,057,322. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google responded to Sandpiper CDN’s Director Review request, asserting that the patent owner forfeited its settled‑expectations argument and that the Fintiv factors support referral. The Board had already instituted the IPR, and the Director’s review was denied.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00919 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 10,259,465.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron’s attempts to obtain director review of a denied IPR are rebuffed. Palisade Technologies argues Micron introduced new, unsupported evidence and made false injunction claims, violating Board rules. The Director is urged to deny all three requests.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑00930. The settlement agreement was kept confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Kaifi LLC and Amazon reached a settlement in principle, prompting a joint motion to stay all court deadlines while the parties finalize their agreement and prepare dismissal filings.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 patent covering a vacuum aspiration system with hemostasis valve. Petitioner Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, especially claim 1, based on obviousness over Garrison, Schaffer and other references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung petitions the Director to vacate the Board’s institution decision for U.S. Patent 10,852,846, arguing the Board failed to construe a key term and improperly relied on expert testimony. The Patent Owner seeks discretionary denial, asserting the Board’s errors undermine claim‑construction consistency.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on claims 1‑9.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care secured institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent, covering claims 1‑9, on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has responded to the patent owner’s request for Director Review, asserting that its compliance with a Fintiv stipulation makes the request moot. The Board had already instituted the IPR on the patent, and Samsung seeks denial of the review so the proceeding can continue.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to terminate the ongoing IPR. The Board is asked to seal the agreement from public disclosure.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
CM HK Limited has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving Samsung’s patents. The Board restricts Samsung’s response to 15 pages, no new evidence, and a five‑day filing window.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries and OAK IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01129 following a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’880 patent and related proceedings.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz settled their inter partes review dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317. The settlement agreement is kept confidential per the Board’s order.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and patent owner The Phelan Group filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory confidentiality provisions.
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.