US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 38 of 286 · 8,574 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on patent 11,544,183, arguing that early termination serves public policy and conserves resources.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies have settled the IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,126,025. The parties filed a joint motion to seal the settlement agreement as business confidential information, keeping it separate from the IPR record.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,126,025, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs and PGRs against Samsung, arguing that Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions in district court and before the PTAB violate recent Revvo precedent.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted settlement motions, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, while keeping the settlement agreements confidential. Generac Power Systems remains as the sole petitioner in the related IPRs.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The motion seeks Board approval to treat the agreement as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,347,656 before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and emphasizes that no merits decision has been rendered.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Dynamic Mesh Networks filed a statutory disclaimer for all claims of U.S. Patent 11,368,537, prompting a petition for Director Review to block the institution of Cisco's IPR. The patent owner argues that the disclaimer bars any IPR under 37 C.F.R. §42.107(e).
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR disputes before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, ending the proceedings and keeping the settlement documents confidential.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Co. filed a Request for Director Review challenging a PTAB decision that granted institution based on a supplier‑based settled‑expectations theory. AutoConnect Holdings contends the Board relied on unsupported facts about Flextronics’ supply of infotainment systems and seeks reversal.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the prior art does not disclose the claimed mobile‑terminal features and that Samsung’s claim‑construction reservations violate procedural rules.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
AutoConnect’s counsel urges the PTAB to deny Ford’s IPR petition, citing Ford’s contradictory indefiniteness arguments and settled‑expectations grounds. The brief references Board guidance that disallows “having it both ways.”
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s petition succeeded; the PTAB held all challenged claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological measurement patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple (as petitioner) secured a Final Written Decision finding claims 1,2,7,15‑23 of Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art. The Board affirmed the petitioner's obviousness arguments while leaving claims 3‑6 and 8‑14 intact.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent resulted in the Board finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple won a PTAB IPR against Omni MedSci, finding 12 of the 23 challenged claims of the 10,517,484 B2 wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable, while the remaining claims survived.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell filed a sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,812,646, asserting that the petition is vague, lacks claim constructions, and misstates the patent owner’s position on the “sleep state.” The patent owner urges the Board to deny institution.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s inter‑partes review of Omni MedSci’s ’533 patent resulted in the PTAB finding all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments, Harbor Freight Tools, and Generac, together with Champion Power Equipment, filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the IPR file. The request cites statutory confidentiality provisions.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological measurement patent resulted in all challenged claims being held unpatentable. The Board found the claims obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer under §103(a).
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2021‑00453, finding claims 1,2,7 and 15‑23 of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent unpatentable over prior art, while leaving the remaining claims intact.
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
The USPTO Director denied Ciena's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01362, leaving the denial of institution in place. No substantive patentability issues were addressed.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex PLC and Credo Technology Group settled their IPR disputes covering three patents, including U.S. Patent 11,012,252, and jointly moved to terminate the proceedings. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex and Credo settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,233 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung Electronics and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute over patent 11307995 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, ending the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,709,772 B1 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, ending the proceeding.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT submits an authorized response defending the institution of its IPR against Haemonetics’ request to vacate it. The petitioner argues the term “controller” is undisputed and that prior‑art references disclose the claimed device, rendering the Patent Owner’s objections meritless.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric requests Director Review of a Board denial, arguing the ‘430 mercury‑removal patent is invalid for lack of priority, written description, and obviousness. The petition cites extensive prior art and warns that settlements are being used to avoid a merits decision.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple’s IPR resulted in the Board finding all six challenged claims of Omni MedSci’s ’299 patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering wearable optical sensing.
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.