US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 286 of 286 · 8,574 total
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,470 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs involving SoundClear Technologies' patents. The Board found the petitions did not meet the required standards.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Petitioners jointly request that the settlement agreement for the Dual Fuel Selector Switch patent be kept confidential and separate from the PTAB file.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,470 B2 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Nintendo filed a motion to withdraw its IPR against Resonant Systems’ 8,860,337 patent. The Board has authorized the filing, and the patent owner does not oppose the withdrawal.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00992 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,352,020.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for a six‑year‑old patent owned by W&Wsens Devices. The petition argues the DI misapplied the Fintiv factors and created an unlawful time‑based bar.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung and affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a USPTO decision that denied institution of an IPR on their 10,446,700 patent. They contend the Board misapplied the Fintiv factors, created an improper time‑bar, and ignored material examination errors.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 11,589,969 intraoral mesh patent. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over five prior‑art references covering all independent and dependent claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR against W&Wsens’s memory patent is challenged by the patent owner, who argues the Board correctly applied discretionary denial factors. The response contends Samsung failed to meet the statutory standard for review and that its arguments are insufficient.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia have reached a settlement and jointly request that the Board treat the settlement agreement as confidential, moving to terminate the IPR over Nokia’s video broadcast patent.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ patent 8,090,025, arguing procedural errors and improper discretionary denial.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google LLC filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ ’303 patent. The petitioner alleges procedural errors, APA violations, and improper reliance on discretionary factors. Google seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the trial.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR on a video‑coding patent was opposed by the patent owner, who argued the denial was proper and requested the review be denied.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ decoding patent. The petition alleges procedural violations, APA breaches, and improper reliance on rescinded guidance.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google’s request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR on a video‑compression patent was opposed by the patent owner, who argued the Director’s discretion was proper and that statutory and procedural challenges were untenable.
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Nokia’s video‑encoding patent, alleging obviousness over MPEG‑1 and H.263 standards. The petition details how each claim limitation is disclosed in the prior‑art references.
Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC
ATLeisure, LLC seeks a discretionary denial of the IPR petition against its adjustable‑umbrella patent, arguing settled expectations, duplicate litigation issues, and a weak priority theory. The petition challenges claims 1‑7 on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Google and Pointwise Ventures have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding at this early stage.
Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC
ATLeisure, LLC seeks a discretionary denial of the IPR against its adjustable‑umbrella patent, arguing settled expectations, duplicate litigation, and prior art already considered by the USPTO.
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Google and Pointwise Ventures filed a joint request to terminate their IPR and keep the settlement agreement confidential under Board rules.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent, arguing examiner error and national‑security stakes. The petition challenges the Board’s reliance on “settled expectations” based solely on patent age.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering video‑frame grouping, finding a reasonable likelihood that Amazon’s challenges based on MPEG‑1, Kim, and Yagasaki would succeed.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 2025 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references covering dental isolation mouthpieces.
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.