US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 35 of 291 · 8,722 total
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Samsung Display’s 10,541,279 B2 OLED touch‑screen patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on 35 U.S.C. §103 and lists eight ground combinations covering the entire claim set.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group petitions to invalidate Samsung Display’s 11,500,496 OLED touchscreen patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious combinations of prior‑art OLED and touch‑sensor technologies.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,574,990, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,574,990 covering OLED pixel circuits and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display’s OLED display patent (US 11,574,990). The petition asserts that all 30 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group has filed a petition to invalidate all twelve claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,512, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art LCD driver references. Six obviousness grounds are presented, each tying specific claim groups to the teachings of Saito, Her, Taguchi, and Kim.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB’s Final Written Decision invalidated all 30 claims of Netlist’s ’054 Flash‑DRAM hybrid memory module patent after Samsung and Micron proved the claims were obvious over Harris, JEDEC FBDIMM standards, Amidi, and Hajeck references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and its affiliates successfully challenged all 15 claims of Netlist’s ’417 memory‑module patent in an IPR, finding them obvious over Perego and JEDEC DDR2 standards. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and dismissed the patent owner’s defenses.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s request to overturn the USPTO’s discretionary denial of an IPR against HBCU Messaging’s messaging patent was rejected. The Board affirmed the denial, emphasizing procedural rules and claim‑construction inconsistencies.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s request for Director review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board affirmed the denial, citing inconsistent claim constructions between the district court and the IPR, in line with Revvo precedent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all eight challenged claims of Netlist’s 8,516,185 B2 memory‑module patent are unpatentable. Samsung, as petitioner, successfully demonstrated obviousness over a combination of Halbert and Amidi references.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,081,503 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public‑policy benefits of settlement.
FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
FedEx seeks rehearing of the PTAB director’s denial to institute an IPR against Valtrus’s file‑system data‑security patent. The petitioner offers an expanded stipulation to waive all district‑court invalidity claims and points to a recent informative Home Depot decision as justification for referral.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics files an authorized response opposing Netlist’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of IPR2025-01431 covering DRAM technology. Samsung contends the Director has already rejected Netlist’s arguments and that no new facts merit reconsideration. The request is therefore urged to be denied.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has requested Director Review of two IPRs (2025‑01486 and 2025‑01488) against HBCU Messaging’s patent 8,918,127. The patent owner may submit a limited 15‑page response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, ending the proceeding and keeping the settlement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two IPR decisions involving Netlist’s patents after the Director recused herself, leaving the Board’s decisions final.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the PTAB's Final Written Decision in the Netlist IPRs, making the Board's decision final.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director review of a PTAB decision in its IPR against Netlist, leaving the Board’s ruling intact.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung jointly filed a request to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent record.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2017‑00549, finding that Samsung Electronics successfully invalidated ten claims of Netlist’s ’364 memory‑module patent as obvious over the Halbert and Amidi references. All challenged claims were held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-01493. The Board set a brief response window for the patent owner and barred new evidence. The Director will decide on the review request.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPR on the ’450 instant‑messaging patent. Apple argues the denial was premature and inefficient, especially given related petitions now referred. The request asks the Board to vacate the denial and institute the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Maxell’s 8,471,950 camera‑control patent, asserting that three earlier imaging patents render all 15 claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
FedEx has filed a petition for rehearing of the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR on its storage‑device performance monitoring patent. The petition relies on an expanded stipulation to waive district‑court invalidity grounds and cites recent informative decisions to argue that the patent’s post‑expiration assertion makes denial inappropriate.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple’s request to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board affirmed the Director’s decision to refer the matter to the district court, leaving HBCU Messaging’s patent intact.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The USPTO Director denied Apple’s request for a rehearing of the institution decision in IPR2025‑01488, leaving the earlier denial of institution in place.
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--
Airwallex and Intercurrency Software settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 before the PTAB could institute an inter partes review. The Board granted the petitioner's motion to withdraw and dismissed the proceeding, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The Director denied Apple Inc.'s request for review of the PTAB's denial of institution in three IPRs against HBCU Messaging, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR against HBCU Messaging’s MMS patent. The petitioner argues that its claim‑construction positions are consistent with district‑court rulings and that the Board improperly applied the Revvo discretionary denial. Apple asks that the decision be vacated and the case be instituted on the merits.
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.