US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 29 of 291 · 8,722 total
Shuttleslide, LLC v.Sea Swivel Inc.
Sea Swivel Inc. submits a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny ShuttleSlide’s post‑grant review of its trolling‑motor mount patent, arguing lack of statutory merit, defective prior‑art copies, and unreliable witness testimony.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung Display have reached a settlement covering all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 10,013,088 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that termination saves resources and promotes settlement policy.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,013,088 before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement confidential. No claim validity determinations were made.
Shuttleslide, LLC v.Sea Swivel Inc.
Shuttleslide, LLC has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Sea Swivel’s U.S. Pat. No. 12,258,111, alleging anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of written description based on numerous marine‑accessory references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 8,350,763 covering multiband antennas. The challenger alleges the patent is obvious over several earlier references and seeks cancellation of all claims.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Accelight Technologies filed an IPR petition challenging Applied Optoelectronics' 10,788,690 patent covering optical isolator arrays. The petition asserts anticipation by Wang (102) for claims 1‑10 and obviousness over Wang and Xiong (103) for claims 11‑19, seeking cancellation of all claims.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's U.S. Patent 10,013,088 covering an integrated OLED touchscreen. The petition asserts that all 13 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Chen, Jang, Sano, and Sakamoto. BOE seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Shuttleslide, LLC v.Sea Swivel Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for PGR2025-00089 because the petitioner failed to meet the likelihood of success standard required under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for several IPR proceedings after petitioners demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their challenges against the patent. This moves these cases forward to the merits phase.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,626,066 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that no merits have been decided.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
The PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR2023‑01075, finding that none of the 24 challenged claims of Samsung Display’s OLED pixel‑arrangement patent (U.S. 11,594,578) were unpatentable. The Board rejected BOE’s obviousness arguments based on Matthies, Yamada, and Hong, concluding no teaching of a "pixel defining layer" existed. All claims remain in force.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,832,616 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
The PTAB held that Samsung Display’s OLED pixel‑arrangement patent claims 1,4‑10,13 and 15 are obvious over prior art, while claim 2 remains patentable.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential. The parties seek to have Exhibit 1029 treated as business confidential information and separated from the patent file.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute (IPR2025-01544) before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement confidential.
Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v.Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al.
Cytek Biosciences has filed a PGR petition challenging Beckman Coulter’s flow‑cytometer patent, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over several prior‑art references.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of Samsung Display's OLED pixel‑arrangement patent. The petition relies on five grounds of obviousness over prior‑art references such as Cok, Suh, Hong, Credelle‑379 and Elliott‑724. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. d/b/a MeshDynamics
Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Dynamic Mesh Networks’ ’385 patent covering wireless mesh networking. The challenger alleges obviousness over prior art from Castagnoli, Bohm, and Liu.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of Samsung Display’s OLED pixel‑arrangement patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of earlier OLED display references.
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of the Regents of the University of California’s 2010 patent on parallel distributed programming, asserting anticipation by the 1998 Fukuda publication.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller and Garrison references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR on Inari Medical’s 12,109,384 patent covering hemostasis valves. All nine claims are under review based on anticipation and obviousness arguments centered on the Schaffer reference and related prior art.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s 11,969,333 patent covering intravascular clot‑removal systems. Petitioner Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim, prompting the Board to institute review on all challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Imperative Care’s petition for inter partes review of Inari Medical’s patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The decision was based on discretionary review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01550 after reaching a settlement, ending the challenge to Bose’s audio‑technology patent.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,852,901 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The motion cites resolved issues and judicial economy as reasons for termination.
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.