US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 48 of 286 · 8,574 total
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑00716 after reaching a settlement that also dismissed the related district‑court lawsuit. The Board is asked to grant the termination because the case is at an early stage and unopposed.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr have settled their IPR dispute and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for a review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Sandpiper’s CDN patent (9,021,112). The institution of the patent remains in effect.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.
Shenzhen FBTech and LiTime settled their IPR challenge to LithiumHub's patent 9,412,994, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial and keep the settlement confidential.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,839,733 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites the early stage of the proceeding and lack of opposition as grounds for termination.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR over patent 7,949,752. The Board is asked to grant the motion based on efficiency and the lack of opposition.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” bar on IPRs. They argue the standard exceeds statutory authority, conflicts with precedent, and violates the APA and due‑process rights.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent was met with a detailed response asserting the denial was proper and that no APA or due‑process violations occurred.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The Director denied Amazon's request to review the PTAB's denial to institute multiple IPRs against Audio Pod IP, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a sur‑reply defending claims 7 and 9 of its gaming patent against Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition. The patent owner argues the prior art (Kelly and Walker) does not disclose the required threshold metrics and that the petitioner’s claim constructions are improper.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, contending that the three cited references (Kelly and Walker) do not disclose the threshold‑value features of Claims 7 and 9, and therefore the petition fails to show unpatentability.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' post‑grant review petition against Vervain's NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the challenger failed to meet the more‑likely‑than‑not standard for unpatentability.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech defends its 2020 dual‑connectivity patent against OnePlus’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited references do not teach the claimed in‑sequence timer and that no obviousness motivation exists.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year ‘settled expectations’ rule to its IPR petition against Audio Pod’s patent. The petition argues the rule violates the AIA, the APA, and due‑process rights.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard’s IPR challenge to Milestone Entertainment’s virtual‑currency patent focuses on Claim 8’s variable multiplier. Milestone’s response argues the cited prior art does not disclose a time‑varying multiplier, rendering the petition’s grounds insufficient.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a preliminary response opposing Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,529,336. The patent owner contends the cited prior art does not disclose key claim limitations and that one reference is not prior art. The Board denied institution of the petition.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a sur‑reply in an IPR challenging Activision Blizzard’s claim that claim 8 of U.S. Patent 10,825,294 is unpatentable. The patent owner asserts the petitioner’s evidence fails to show a variable multiplier for virtual currency over time and that new arguments are improper.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails to show that the prior art discloses key virtual‑currency features of U.S. Patent 10,650,635. The response stresses missing disclosures of a multiplier and image‑based conversion, and a lack of motivation to combine references, seeking denial of the petition.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00758 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,908,508.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
Interstellar Inc. submits a response urging the PTAB to deny Kahoot!’s request for Director Review of the discretionary denial in IPR2025‑00696. The owner contends the Director’s discretion is broad, there is no six‑year bright‑line rule for settled expectations, and the petitioner’s arguments are repetitive and unsupported.
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
Kahoot! has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Interstellar’s ’825 patent, arguing the six‑year settled‑expectations rule was misapplied.
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
The USPTO denied Kahoot!’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Interstellar’s patent. The denial leaves the original institution denial intact.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested Director Review of six IPRs targeting its audio‑pod patent. The PTAB will decide whether a limited review is permitted, with the patent owner allowed a brief response but no new evidence.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00754 after settling their dispute, including dismissal of related district‑court litigation.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑00753 after settling their dispute and dismissing related district‑court litigation.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed a Director Review petition seeking to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on a mercury‑control patent. The patent owner argues the MDL already provides a more efficient forum and that the Board’s action would cause duplicative litigation.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and MidAmerican challenge MES’s mercury‑control patent, arguing the Director erred in referring the petition and that the patent’s prosecution contained material misstatements. They seek denial of the patent owner’s Director Review request, emphasizing PTAB efficiency over the MDL.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation by Schaffer and obviousness over combinations with Hartley, Eller and Garrison. The decision hinges on the Board’s construction that the claimed filament must be flexible, which the prior art does not disclose.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and other petitioners filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR concerning IPL and WPL after settlements with Birchtech Corp. The motion cites statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §317 and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
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.