US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 50 of 286 · 8,574 total
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under federal rules.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm AS settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,554,473 B2. The Board dismissed the petition and terminated the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00751 concerning patent 9,876,771 after resolving related district‑court litigation.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The USPTO denied Tessell's request for Director Review of the institution denial in its IPR against Nutanix's patent. The Board affirmed the earlier decision, leaving the institution denial in place.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPR against Nutanix’s patent 10,817,157. The petition argues the Director exceeded authority under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) by applying assignor estoppel, which Federal Circuit precedent bars in IPRs.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung sought Director Review of a USPTO discretionary denial of its IPR petitions against iCashe’s payment‑system patents. The Board upheld the Director’s decision, finding no APA or due‑process violations.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of the institution decisions in seven IPRs, including the case covering patent 11,270,174. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has asked the PTAB Director to review six IPRs involving Audio Pod’s patent 9,319,720. The patent owner must reply within five business days, limited to the issues raised and without new evidence.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon seeks PTAB Director Review of several IPRs against Audio Pod’s patent; the owner must respond within five days without new evidence.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements sealed as business‑confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related Board rules.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a Director Review request after the USPTO denied institution of its IPRs challenging iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The email seeks rehearing of the denial and notes parallel P‑TACTS filings.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility companies and BirchTech settled multiple IPRs covering power‑grid patents. The Board treated the settlement agreements as confidential and terminated the IPRs as to the settling petitioners, leaving the remaining petitioners in the proceeding.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr reached a settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR concerning patent 8,275,827 before any merits were decided. The settlement agreement was kept confidential under Board rules.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,275,827. They jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung's request for Director Review of institution denials in several IPRs was denied by the PTAB, leaving the original decisions unchanged.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,926,218 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement before any merits decision.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr have settled their IPR dispute and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPRs challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,839,733. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to rehear a decision that denied institution of an IPR over iCashe's mobile‑payment patent. The petition alleges procedural violations, including the improper rescission of the Vidal Memo and failure to consider Samsung's Sotera stipulation.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition on the 11,501,607 gaming patent. The owner contends the cited prior art does not disclose key claim elements and that one reference is not prior art. The Board is asked to reject institution.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment’s sur‑reply rebuts Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, asserting that Walker’s provisional does not confer prior‑art status, that Milestone’s conception and diligence are well‑documented, and that Kelly fails to disclose key claim limitations.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the one covering iCashe's mobile‑payment patent 9,202,156.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent is opposed by iCashe, which argues the Director correctly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung has no right to institution.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings. The joint motion and stipulation with prejudice ended the challenge to patent 10,171,433.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of the PTAB's decisions not to institute several IPRs against iCashe's patents. The order affirms the PTAB's original institution denials.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their patent dispute, leading to the termination of three IPRs before any trial was instituted.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment’s preliminary response argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails to show that the cited references disclose the patented dynamic game‑parameter system or provide a motivation to combine them, leading to a request for denial of institution.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The PTAB denied Tessell's petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nutanix patents, leaving the institution denials intact.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent. The petition argues that recent USPTO policy changes were made without required rulemaking and ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation, violating the APA and due‑process rights.
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.