US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 50 of 188 · 5,620 total
Hisense USA Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Phenix Longhorn’s LCD gamma‑correction patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Wireless, LLC
OnePlus Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging ten claims of Pantech's U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Zeira and Yi publications. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Wireless, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR for OnePlus Technology against Pantech Wireless, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 10 challenged claims. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references Zeira and Yi taught the necessary elements to overcome obviousness rejections.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung’s IPR against Wilus has been instituted after the Board granted institution on Feb. 9, 2026. The patent owner’s request for Director Review is argued to be moot, relying on pre‑institution filings and Samsung’s compliance with its Fintiv stipulation.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
In IPR2020‑01207, the PTAB held that Samsung’s challenger proved that 11 of the 14 asserted claims of the ’395 patent are anticipated by the prior‑art Grupp ’483 reference, rendering them unpatentable, while three claims remained patent‑eligible.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of IPR 2025‑01003 was rejected. The Deputy Director’s use of the settled‑expectations standard and discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) was upheld, leaving Audio Pod’s patent in force.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2025-01003 (patent 9,729,907) and IPR2025-01041, leaving the institution denials intact.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” bar that denied institution of its IPR against patent 9,729,907. The petition argues the rule violates the AIA, APA, and established case law. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the IPR.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s petition for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial in a series of IPRs against Telcom Ventures. The Board affirmed the original denial, leaving the patents in force.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus requests Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR, alleging Samsung broke its Sotera‑type stipulation by planning to use the same prior art in district‑court litigation. The Board had previously denied discretionary denial based on Samsung’s promise.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-01003 concerning Audio Pod’s patent 9,729,907. The PTAB has limited the patent owner’s response to 15 pages and barred new evidence, setting a tight five‑day deadline.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Acorn’s ’395 patent succeeded on eight of the 26 claims, finding claims 1‑5 and 8‑10 unpatentable, while the remaining claims survived.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung Electronics’ challenge to Acorn Semi’s ’261 patent succeeded, finding all nine challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation by Grupp ’483 and obviousness over Jammy.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries and Oak IP filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00889 after reaching a settlement, citing that the Board has not yet instituted the review and all disputes are resolved.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
Globalfoundries and Oak IP settled their IPR dispute before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,470,595, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art Wi‑Fi standards such as Josiam, Seok, Chen and Wu. The petition relies on the bandwidth field in HE‑SIG‑A and the common field in HE‑SIG‑B to show lack of novelty.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’743 patent covering NFC‑based smartphone payments. The petition argues the claims are obvious over earlier Jain and Dua publications and asserts no discretionary denial should apply.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics challenged 12 claims of Wilus Institute's wireless communication patent (11470595) based on obviousness. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding reasonable likelihood that Samsung will prevail regarding unpatentability.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR against Wilus Institute, citing the petitioner's failure to justify inconsistent claim construction arguments made in district court versus before the Board.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. Pat. 9,147,297, asserting that its vehicle infotainment control claims are obvious over prior‑art systems such as Zancho, Sundaram, and Demeniuk.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’194 patent covering MOS transistor fabrication. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references: Hoentschel262, Wang407, and Wang753.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the IPR against Adeia Media’s 8,542,705 patent before the Board had instituted the trial, citing cost and efficiency. The Board’s prior practice of granting pre‑institution dismissals supports the request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Zophonos Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of Zophonos’s hearing‑protection patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering earpieces, wireless communication, and audio‑control interfaces.
Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR2026-00094 after reviewing the merits and non-discretionary considerations.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, asserting that the prior art was already considered, the petition contains false statements, and the expert testimony adds no weight. The owner contends that none of the cited references disclose the claimed dynamic operation‑panel architecture.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell filed a preliminary sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,812,091. The owner argues the petition misreads the claim’s two‑panel requirement and that the cited prior art was already considered by the USPTO, seeking denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SnapAid’s ’901 patent on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, citing a suite of prior‑art references covering image‑quality assessment and camera feedback systems.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Maxell’s ’091 set‑top‑box patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds covering all claims and cites expert testimony to bolster its position.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The Board granted institution for IPR2025-01311, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review after determining the petitioner met the required likelihood of success standard.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple, on behalf of Samsung, has filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer and requests that the Board institute the review.
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.