US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 44 of 286 · 8,574 total
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
USAA defends the institution of an IPR against Auto Telematics, arguing the patent owner waived procedural arguments and that the ’728 vehicle‑data‑logging patent is obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC’s request for a Director review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial was rejected. The patent owner argues the Director correctly applied the law and that TSMC’s new‑fact and abuse‑of‑discretion theories lack merit.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Henri Daussi, LLC's motion to withdraw its IPR petition against ECNA, LLC's patent 9,398,791, while allowing the parties to file a joint motion to terminate the proceeding after settling.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
Henri Daussi, LLC filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its IPR petition after reaching a settlement with patent owner ECNA, LLC. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the parties seek termination of the proceeding.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google argues against the patent owner’s request to revoke institution, emphasizing that the patent’s expiration and a district‑court stay do not justify discretionary denial, and urges the case to proceed.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The USPTO Director denied Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company's request for Director Review of the PTAB's institution denial for patent 8,253,180. The denial applies uniformly across five related IPRs.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed a Director Review Request seeking reversal of a discretionary denial that blocked its challenge to U.S. Patent 8,587,076. The petition emphasizes national‑security stakes, settled expectations, and alleged examiner errors. The PTAB has yet to rule on the request.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC opposes TSMC’s request for a Director review of an IPR, arguing the request is defective and lacks merit. The response stresses the Director’s proper discretionary denial based on efficiency and lack of substantive evidence.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks PTAB reversal of a Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR against its 28nm‑3nm process patents, arguing national‑security stakes, settled expectations, and material examiner errors. The petition cites extensive prior art to show lack of patentability under §§102 and 103.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
An email from the PTAB Director confirms receipt of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00864 and IPR2025-00865, outlining a 15‑page response limit and prohibiting new evidence. The patent owner must file its response within five business days.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools, Generac and MWE have reached a settlement with Champion Power Equipment in IPR2025‑00805 and are asking the PTAB to keep the agreement confidential. The request cites statutory authority to treat settlement documents as business‑confidential information.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight and Champion Power filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file in IPR2025-00805.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial of an IPR on a semiconductor patent. The patent owner argues the denial was proper and the petition defective. The Board’s decision remains pending.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Champion Power Equipment’s generator patent, addressing claim‑construction disputes raised by Harbor Freight and its co‑petitioners.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Petitioner OnePlus filed Director Review requests for IPR2025-00887 and IPR2025-00888. The PTAB Director limited the patent owner Pantech’s response to 15 pages, to be filed within five business days, and barred new evidence.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC opposes Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.'s request for a Director review of U.S. Patent 7,579,227, arguing the Board correctly exercised discretionary denial. The response highlights procedural deficiencies, meritless new‑facts claims, and unsupported national‑security arguments.
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Inter IKEA Systems and Pointwise Ventures settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The exhibit summarizes PTAB IPR outcomes for TSMC, highlighting that about 42% of its challenged claims were found unpatentable.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel seeks rehearing after the PTAB Director denied institution of IPR2025‑00794, arguing that a recent $8.9 billion U.S. government investment makes its Xeon chips a national‑security priority and that the denial misapprehended this.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over a GPU clustering patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, leading the Board to end the proceeding.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC filed a Director Review Request asking the PTAB to overturn a discretionary denial and refer its challenge to the ‘227 patent to a merits panel, citing national security, settled expectations, and material errors in issuance.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel filed a request for rehearing after the PTAB Director denied institution of IPR2025‑00795, arguing that a recent $8.9 billion U.S. government investment makes its Xeon processors vital to national security. The petition contends the Director misapprehended the briefing and seeks referral to a merits panel.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR petition against Marlin Semiconductor’s ’880 patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC case. The Petitioners’ arguments about size and investment were deemed immaterial.
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.
MIM Software and EXINI Diagnostics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,941,817 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 10333768.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google challenged Sandpiper CDN’s request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering an expired CDN patent. The Board affirmed institution, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for key claims and rejecting discretionary denial arguments. The case now moves toward a final written decision.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the PTAB’s discretionary denial of an IPR against OnePlus, keeping its LTE/5G patents intact. The Board found no examiner error or unpatentable prior art and affirmed the Director’s decision under § 314(a).
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of its IPR against Pantech's patent 9,288,824. The order applies to multiple related IPRs.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of an institution decision that allowed review of an expired Sandpiper CDN patent. The petition argues the Board ignored settled‑expectation precedent and that the petition fails the likelihood‑of‑success threshold.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG SAUER and True Velocity settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,561,543, leading the Board to dismiss the proceeding before trial.
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.