US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 37 of 286 · 8,574 total
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ patent covering proximity‑based wireless transactions. The PTAB instituted the review and ultimately held all nine challenged claims unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Perttila and Swartz references.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Maxell’s 10,176,848 patent succeeded. All seven challenged claims—including those covering face‑recognition‑based chapter selection and a recording‑reproducing mode—were found obvious over Nozaki, Haitani, Graham and Kim.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent covering server‑mediated data exchange between wireless devices. The petition relies on Eagle and Mgrdechian as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung successfully challenged Maxell’s ’086 patent, leading the PTAB to find all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious. The Board relied on a combination of prior‑art references covering touch‑screen input methods.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a proximity‑based loyalty patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over Perttila combined with either Insolia or Davis. The petition stresses that the prior art was never considered during prosecution and requests the Board not to deny institution on discretionary grounds.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based commerce patent resulted in a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness over Perttila, Emmons, and Insolia.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate a mobile e‑commerce patent, arguing that the claimed server‑mediated exchange is obvious over existing Bluetooth coupon systems and related e‑commerce implementations.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Target’s ’842 patent resulted in the PTAB finding all challenged claims unpatentable. The Board relied on Mgrdechian, Swartz, and Kulakowski as prior art to establish anticipation and obviousness. The decision underscores the vulnerability of proximity‑based transaction patents.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs and three PGRs against Samsung, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent PTAB precedent.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of its IPR petition against Sonos’s audio‑player patent, alleging procedural violations of the APA, improper delegation of authority, and fee‑setting misalignment.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Sonos’s audio patent.
Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC
Apple and Vampire Labs have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,358,103, and they have jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap and Hisense settled their disputes with Nokia over patents 9,036,701 and 11,805,267. The Board granted joint motions to terminate, ending the IPRs before institution.
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE have settled their IPR dispute with Champion Power over a dual‑fuel selector switch. They filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential and to withdraw from the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have reached a confidential settlement and jointly filed a motion to terminate the IPR on patent 11,740,801. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding without a merits decision.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
The USPTO denied Microsoft’s petition to institute an Inter Partes Review of Dialect’s patents, citing the age of the patents, subsidiary ownership issues, and a parallel district‑court case.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung Electronics and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR disputes before trial, resulting in the termination of seven pending IPRs, including IPR2025-01350 covering patent 11,740,801.
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
Eli Lilly successfully defended its tirzepatide patent after the PTAB denied BPI Labs' request for Director Review of the institution denial, citing strong settled expectations and proper exercise of discretion.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,036,701 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under trade‑secret rules. The request cites statutory authority to limit public disclosure of the agreement.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPRs have unusually high numbers of prior‑art citations and often rely on new references introduced during the post‑grant proceeding. Expert testimony and novel evidence play a key role in the Board’s unpatentability findings.
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Hisense and VideoLabs settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,769,238. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and ordered the related license agreement to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Apple Inc. filed a motion to dismiss its IPR petition against Telcom Ventures LLC’s ’708 patent, arguing that the Board has not yet decided on institution and that dismissal will conserve resources. The motion references the related district‑court litigation where the patent was dismissed with prejudice.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect, LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025-01351 before institution, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet made an institution decision, and the parties seek confidentiality for the agreement.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect settled the IPR concerning patent 7,634,409 before the Board could institute a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted and the settlement agreement was kept confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,250,758. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR proceeding, citing the settlement and judicial economy.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies have settled IPR2025-01245. The parties filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and separate from the public docket.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on Remand, finding all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent unpatentable. Apple’s arguments on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references prevailed.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on remand, holding that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent are unpatentable. The Board relied on an obviousness analysis over a combination of prior‑art references and affirmed the claim construction of “identify an object.”
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Google (as petitioner) successfully challenged claim 12 of Dialect’s ’160 patent, which covers speech‑recognition handling of natural‑language utterances. The Board held the claim obvious over the Kennewick and Ross references and rendered it unpatentable.
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.