US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 32 of 286 · 8,574 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung submits an authorized response opposing Wilus’s request for director review, arguing the examiner erred materially and that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The IPR remains instituted pending the Board’s decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01043, leaving the patent owner’s claims intact.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review, upholding the Deputy Director’s discretionary denial of institution for Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent. The Board found Amazon’s APA and due‑process arguments unpersuasive.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus sought leave to address recent director‑review decisions and submit new evidence in five IPRs, but the Director denied the request, citing policy against inconsistent claim constructions and statutory timing constraints.
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) while seeking to terminate the IPR.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
Geotab has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR on patent 8,456,365. The petition argues the Director’s ‘settled expectations’ analysis is unlawful, arbitrary, and exceeds statutory authority.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs involving Wilus's patent 11,159,210. The institution decisions remain in effect.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Wilus’s request for leave to address recent Director Review decisions and submit additional evidence in five IPRs involving Samsung. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR on Intercurrency Software’s 10,776,863 patent covering a consolidated trading platform, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑12 based on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB Director received a request from Amazon and co‑petitioner for Director Review of IPR2025‑01041 concerning patent 10,735,488. The Patent Owner, Audio Pod IP, LLC, may file a 15‑page response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence permitted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus Institute seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR on patent 11,129,163, arguing the Board misread prosecution history and ignored key arguments about BSS color usage.
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 9,613,060 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen and Longhorn Automotive have settled their dispute over a PET/CT imaging patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The related district court case was dismissed, leaving no further litigation.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 12,290,418 intraoral device patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR covering 26 claims.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of its IPR challenge against Telcom Ventures, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution decision.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision to deny institution of IPR2025-01161 involving patent 7,804,891. The denial upholds the earlier institution refusal.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
The patent owner has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00959, and the Board has instructed the petitioner to submit a limited response within five business days.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google withdrew its IPR petition against SoundClear's patent, and the Board terminated the proceeding. No claims were instituted or decided.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review before it was instituted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR against CM HK’s sensor‑fusion patent. The petition alleges institutional error due to unresolved claim construction, improper reliance on expert testimony, and failure to identify material error in prior‑art translation.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV Company and Nokia Technologies settled the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 8,050,321. They jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung challenges Wilus’s request for Director Review of the IPR institution, arguing examiner error and consistent claim constructions. The petitioner seeks denial of the review so the IPR can proceed.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
Sony Interactive Entertainment and AX Wireless have settled their Wi‑Fi patent dispute, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board has not yet instituted the proceeding, and the parties seek to avoid further litigation costs.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01069, leaving the institution of the Wilus patent intact.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
Globalfoundries and Oak IP LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,937,880 before the Board instituted trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving patent 11,698,687, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Sandpiper CDN’s expired ’903 patent covering CDN alias routing. The petition argues that expiration and a district‑court stay do not create settled expectations for discretionary denial and that the prior art Kenner teaches the claimed elements.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
Sony Interactive Entertainment and AX Wireless settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,917,272 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board granted the termination and confidentiality request.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial, arguing that the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule unlawfully limits IPR filings. The petition contends the rule violates the APA, the AIA’s filing deadlines, and due‑process rights.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025‑00995, leaving the original denial of institution in place.
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.