Page 51 of 188 · 5,620 total

patent · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01254

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering optical sensing, AI processing and cloud connectivity. Apple requests that the Board institute the trial and find all claims unpatentable.

patent · May 8, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01352

A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPR have far more prior‑art citations and often depend on new evidence such as expert testimony. The findings suggest that post‑grant challenges frequently introduce prior art outside the examiner’s original search scope.

patent · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01253

Apple’s IPR petition challenges Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability.

patent · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01253

Samsung and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 patent covering wearable optical health monitors. The petition asserts obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references and asks the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.

patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01352

Microsoft and Dialect reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The Board granted the joint motion and ordered the settlement to remain confidential.

patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01352

Microsoft and Dialect reached a settlement that resolves disputes over patent 8,620,659 and other patents, leading to a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review before the Board makes an institution decision.

patent · May 8, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01352

Microsoft and Dialect have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking trade‑secret protections under the CFR. The motion seeks Board‑only access and notification of any disclosure requests.

patent denied · May 8, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01352

The PTAB denied Microsoft’s petition for an inter partes review of five patents owned by Dialect, LLC, exercising discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board cited the patents’ age, subsidiary ownership, and a parallel district court case as reasons to avoid duplication.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01254

The PTAB held that Apple’s wearable physiological measurement claims were obvious over prior‑art pulse‑oximetry references, rendering all challenged claims unpatentable. The decision relied on Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer teachings.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01253

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2021‑00453, finding claims 1,2,7 and 15‑23 of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent unpatentable over prior art, while leaving the remaining claims intact.

patent · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01250

Apple (as petitioner) secured a Final Written Decision finding claims 1,2,7,15‑23 of Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art. The Board affirmed the petitioner's obviousness arguments while leaving claims 3‑6 and 8‑14 intact.

patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC

· IPR2025-01378

Samsung Electronics and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute (IPR2025-01378) before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement documents confidential.

patent · May 8, 2025

Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association

· IPR2025-01356

Regions Bank and USAA jointly moved to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.

patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025

Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association

· IPR2025-01356

Regions Bank and United Services Automobile Association have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 12,211,095 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under §317(a) before any merits are decided.

patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01267

BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,126,025, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.

patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01267

BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies have settled the IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,126,025. The parties filed a joint motion to seal the settlement agreement as business confidential information, keeping it separate from the IPR record.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01254

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on remand, holding that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent are unpatentable. The Board relied on an obviousness analysis over a combination of prior‑art references and affirmed the claim construction of “identify an object.”

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01253

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on Remand, finding all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent unpatentable. Apple’s arguments on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references prevailed.

patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025

Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association

· IPR2025-01356

Regions Bank and USAA settled their inter partes review dispute over USAA’s automobile‑insurance patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPRs and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01252

The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent succeeded on 12 of the 23 claims, finding them obvious over prior‑art references such as Lisogurski, Carlson, Tran, Isaacson and Valencell‑093. The remaining claims were not shown unpatentable.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01253

Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s ‘533 patent resulted in all challenged claims being found unpatentable. The Board held that the claims were obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01252

Apple’s wearable physiological‑monitoring patent was declared entirely unpatentable after Samsung’s PTAB challenge, with the Board finding the claims obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering optical sensors, pulse‑rate modulation, spaced emitters, and reflective surfaces.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01250

Apple prevailed in IPR2020‑00175, with the PTAB finding all six challenged claims of the ’299 patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer and Park references.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01249

Apple prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent, finding 12 of the 23 claims unpatentable while the remaining claims survived.

patent · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01249

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent, arguing that all asserted claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson and Mannheimer.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01249

Apple (as petitioner) prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent, with the PTAB finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer. The decision hinges on pulse‑rate and signal‑to‑noise teachings in the prior art.

patent · May 8, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-01239

Apple Inc. filed a motion to dismiss its IPR petition against Telcom Ventures' U.S. Patent 12,028,793, arguing that the Board has not yet ruled on institution and that proceeding would waste resources. The motion seeks pre‑institution dismissal while other related IPRs remain active in parallel litigation.

patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01267

BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,126,025 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR proceeding.

patent · May 8, 2025

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01249

Court decision.

patent · May 8, 2025

Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association

· IPR2025-01356

Regions Bank has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of US Patent 12,211,095, which covers mobile check‑deposit functionality. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references spanning mobile imaging, APIs, and OCR. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.

1 •••505152•••188
Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →