US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 53 of 286 · 8,574 total
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR covering its Samsung Pay technology. The petition argues that recent USPTO guidance changes violated the APA and due‑process rights, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and misapplied settled‑expectations factors.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen has filed Director Review requests in IPR2025-00601 and -00602, and the PTAB has instructed Bristol‑Myers Squibb to respond within five business days without new evidence.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR against its 7,689,001 patent should be denied, citing a pending settlement and flaws in the petition’s base challenge.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
The PTAB denied Amgen's request for Director Review of the USPTO's decision not to institute two IPRs against Bristol‑Myers Squibb patents, leaving the institution denials intact.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of the Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of Revvo Technologies’ challenge to Cerebrum Sensor Technologies’ patent. The review focuses on claim construction issues raised by the petitioner.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition against iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent 11,270,174. The supporting declaration authenticates numerous prior‑art patents and applications that Samsung relies on to challenge the patent’s claims.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
iCashe, Inc. opposes Samsung’s request for Director Review of discretionary denials of seven IPR petitions covering patent 9,208,423. The patent owner argues the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memos and that Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and settled‑expectations arguments were insufficient to overturn the denial.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen’s request for Director Review of IPR denial is rebuffed by Bristol‑Myers Squibb, which argues the petitioner offers no credible basis and that European prosecution does not affect settled expectations for the U.S. patent.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Director Review request seeking reversal of the USPTO’s discretionary denial to institute six IPRs against iCashe’s patent 9,208,423.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple moved to terminate IPR2025-00600 after a reexamination cancelled all claims of the 10,698,989 patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR petition is unlikely to succeed and that the parties have settled the underlying dispute. The patent owner seeks discretionary denial and plans to request termination of the IPR.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a petition asking the USPTO Director to rehear the denial of institution for several IPRs targeting iCashe’s patent. The request challenges the Director’s discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute IPR2025-00586 against TJTM Technologies. Director John A. Squires issued an order denying the petition.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of its IPRs against iCashe’s payment patents was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung lacks a protected due‑process interest.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled all disputes in a series of inter partes reviews covering U.S. Patent No. 11,716,816, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before institution. The settlement agreement was designated confidential business information.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
iCashe, Inc. filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial of seven IPR petitions. The Patent Owner argues the Director properly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung’s Sotera stipulation was considered but not dispositive. The Board is urged to uphold the denial.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 8,368,201 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in the iCashe payment‑system IPR. The Board affirmed the original decision not to institute the case.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung seeks Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial of seven IPR petitions against iCashe’s payment‑system patents. iCashe contends the USPTO correctly applied the Boalick and Stewart memoranda and that Samsung has no protected due‑process interest. The patent owner urges denial of the review request.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility companies settled multiple IPRs against BirchTech’s patents before trial. The Board granted a joint request to treat the settlement as confidential and terminated the cases for the settling petitioners.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement for Patent 7,989,944 as confidential business information, limiting its disclosure.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for iCashe’s NFC payment patent. The petition alleges procedural violations of the APA and due‑process rights, and argues the Board ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and misapplied settled‑expectations factors.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB Director to rehear a decision that denied institution of iCashe’s NFC payment patent. The petition argues that recent USPTO policy changes were made without proper rulemaking and ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation, constituting an abuse of discretion.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Aviel Rubin, an expert for Four Batons, argues that Samsung’s prior‑art references do not render any claims of the ’671 patent obvious. He rejects all four grounds of unpatentability, suggesting the petition lacks merit.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung and Anonymous Media Research Holdings jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00558 before any institution decision, and the Board granted the termination to conserve resources.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, limiting access to government agencies or parties with good cause.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the Board’s decision not to institute an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 9,619,578, leaving the institution denial in place.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
ControlTec seeks director review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR against its 18‑year‑old cochlear‑implant patent. Anthony Inc. counters, asserting the Director acted within discretion and that a material error involving the Carter reference exists.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
Amazon and AlmondNet settled their IPR over patent 8,494,904 and jointly requested the Board keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in eight related IPRs against Mobile Data Technologies. The order contains no substantive patentability findings.
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.