US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 42 of 286 · 8,574 total
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,178,104 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech jointly moved to have their settlement agreements treated as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board is asked to keep the agreements separate from the public patent file.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy and patent owner BirchTech jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential and terminate the IPR, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and PacifiCorp filed a joint motion to end their IPR against BirchTech Corp., seeking to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. and HydraFacial LLC settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate both IPRs before institution. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related Board rules to limit public disclosure.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a Director rehearing request after the PTAB denied institution of five IPRs against Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,419,996. The petition seeks reversal of the discretionary denial under § 314(a) and notes concurrent P‑TACTS filings.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
PTAB denied Samsung’s Director Review requests to overturn institution denials for five IPRs, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR concerning patent 10,668,430 after reaching a settlement with Birchtech Corp. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding with respect to WEC Energy Group.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related Board rules, seeking to terminate the IPR while protecting commercial terms.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,601,780 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
The PTAB Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00447, leaving the original institution ruling in place.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,668,430, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the IPR pending settlement.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to WEC Energy Group after the parties settled their dispute over Patent 10,668,430. The termination does not affect the remaining petitioners, and the proceeding continues against them.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard and Medline filed a joint PTAB motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under §317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure to federal agencies only.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and MidAmerican Energy have jointly moved to terminate their IPR and keep the settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s WEC Energy Group and patent owner Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,668,430. They filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing settlement and lack of a merits decision.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations have settled their IPR over patent 10,601,780 and jointly filed a request to keep the settlement agreement confidential. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
The USPTO Director denied Murata's request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00383, leaving the Georgia Tech patent intact.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB Director denied a petition for review of institution decisions in four IPRs, including Stratasys's 3D‑printing patent (US 10,569,466). The denial leaves the institution decisions intact.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata Manufacturing’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR was rejected. The Board affirmed the Director’s discretionary denial, emphasizing a holistic assessment and the Fintiv factors.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,589,225, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues no merits decision has been made.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
AT&T and Nokia, together with patent owner ASSIA, have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,954,631 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and end the proceeding.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The IPR against BirchTech’s patent was terminated for MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement, while the proceeding remains open for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and PacificCorp.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Ningde Amperex Technology successfully defended its lithium‑battery separator patent as the PTAB denied the challenger’s request for Director Review. The Board found the prior art did not disclose the required APDR values and rejected the petitioner’s expert approximations.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493, a camera‑technology patent. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB terminated the IPR against MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement with BirchTech Corp., while the case continues for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,589,225. They jointly moved to terminate the IPR for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light, citing 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to dismiss those parties from the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00457; Cerence may respond within five business days.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its high‑Q passive RF component patent, alleging procedural errors, an erroneous priority claim, and misuse of the new “settled expectations” factor.
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.