US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 46 of 188 · 5,620 total
Wise PLC et al. v.--
Court decision.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving SoundClear’s patent 9,804,819. The denial leaves the original institution decisions, which denied institution, in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial, arguing that the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule unlawfully limits IPR filings. The petition contends the rule violates the APA, the AIA’s filing deadlines, and due‑process rights.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR against CM HK’s sensor‑fusion patent. The petition alleges institutional error due to unresolved claim construction, improper reliance on expert testimony, and failure to identify material error in prior‑art translation.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen and Longhorn Automotive have settled their dispute over a PET/CT imaging patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The related district court case was dismissed, leaving no further litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board was asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential and separate it from the IPR file.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR on Intercurrency Software’s 10,776,863 patent covering a consolidated trading platform, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑12 based on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron’s attempts to obtain director review of a denied IPR are rebuffed. Palisade Technologies argues Micron introduced new, unsupported evidence and made false injunction claims, violating Board rules. The Director is urged to deny all three requests.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,334,918 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317 and cites Board policy favoring settlement before any merit decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
The PTAB Director has sent a Director Review request for Samsung's IPR challenge, requiring a concise, issue‑limited response within five business days and prohibiting new evidence.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
Court decision.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,620,701, leading the PTAB to dismiss the case before a trial was instituted. The settlement resolved all claims and the proceeding was terminated.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
An email informs Micron and Palisade that a Director Review has been requested for IPR2025-01008 (and 01009). The patent owner may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed, and the Director will decide on the request.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Longhorn Automotive's 8,265,353 patent covering CT‑PET motion correction. The petition alleges the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Weese, Muehllehner and Wainer. No institution decision has been made yet.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Evolution Malta’s U.S. Patent No. 11,011,014 covering a roulette‑based wagering system. The petition relies on prior art references Kido, Yee, and Baron to argue anticipation and obviousness, and cites a district‑court finding of invalidity under Alice.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition challenging Evolution Malta’s ’024 roulette‑payout patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Kido, Yee, and Baron prior art.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s U.S. Patent 9,281,314 covering NAND flash memory structures. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references—Kang, Kang‑1, Purayath, and Murata—using Phillips claim‑construction standards. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of CM HK’s 11,698,687 patent covering a 3‑D pointing device. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Bassompiere prior art and lack written‑description support for quaternion‑based algorithms.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Evolution Malta’s ’371 roulette‑payout patent, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier gaming patents such as Kido, Yee, and Baron.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 69 claims of the ’971 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of Watanabe, Ribaudo, and Behrens prior art relating to Bluetooth beacon and proximity services.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 26 claims of U.S. Patent 11,443,344, which covers Bluetooth beacon‑based proximity services. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of Watanabe, Ribaudo, and Behrens references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of U.S. Patent 11,334,918 covering proximity‑beacon functionality in mobile devices. The challenger relies on obviousness arguments based on Ribaudo and its combination with Watanabe, Behrens, and Mgrdechian. The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
Wise PLC has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Intercurrency Software’s U.S. Patent 11,620,701, seeking to invalidate all sixteen claims as obvious over existing foreign‑exchange trading systems.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Light & Wonder against Evolution Malta, finding a reasonable likelihood that Kido anticipates claims related to roulette wagering systems. The Board adopted a broad definition of 'payout' including progressive jackpots.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Evolution Malta Limited's patent (10629024), challenging claims related to internet-based wagering. The Board adopted a broad construction for 'payout,' finding that prior art reference Kido anticipates several key claims.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder, Inc. successfully secured institution in the IPR against Evolution Malta Limited regarding roulette wagering systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation grounds (102) and key claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. successfully moved forward in the IPR against CM HK LIMITED, achieving a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1. The Board focused heavily on obviousness arguments concerning sensor fusion and Kalman filter implementations using quaternion mathematics.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen Group of America successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claim 1's obviousness over Weese. The Board instituted review for all 18 claims and grounds due to procedural deficiencies by the Patent Owner.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including IPR2025‑01044 covering patent 11,516,879.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung’s IPR against Wilus’s 802.11ax‑related patent remains alive after the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial was rebutted. The response highlights material examiner errors and the case’s technical diversity, urging the Director to deny the review request.
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.