US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 54 of 286 · 8,574 total
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent 9,619,578. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, examiner error, and violations of due process. It seeks reversal and institution of the review.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal rules. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations to limit public access to the agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against its mobile‑data patent. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, examiner error, and statutory violations, and references a prior settlement that terminated a related IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent intact. The Board affirmed that settled expectations justified the denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy and BirchTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,933,370. The parties jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing settlement and lack of a merits decision. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the IPR.
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 multiple IPRs involving Mobile Data Technologies’ patents.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s petition for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ ‘348 patent intact. The Board emphasized settled expectations and the lack of new legal arguments.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility consortiums including PacifiCorp settled IPRs covering several power‑grid patents, resulting in the termination of the proceeding for two petitioners while the Board kept the case open for the remaining parties. The settlement agreement was designated business‑confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 9,922,348. The petition contends the denial was an abuse of discretion, citing unfounded settled‑expectations claims, factual errors, and examiner error. It seeks reversal and institution of the review.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the decision that had denied institution of Pantech’s patent 9,763,283. The denial leaves the institution denial standing.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for an IPR covering a Mobile Data Technologies patent on mobile‑data technology. The petition argues the Board abused discretion, misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine, and ignored clear examiner error. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also highlighted.
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 multiple IPRs, including the case involving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 8,793,336. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board upheld the denial, emphasizing the patent owner’s strong settled expectations and lack of any material error in examination.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,451,339, jointly moving to terminate IPR 2025‑00628.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board affirmed that Mobile Data Technologies enjoys strong settled expectations for its ’801 patent, keeping the denial in place.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Mobile Data Technologies’ wireless‑communication patent 8,825,801.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. have reached a settlement in principle regarding patent 8,930,196. The parties filed a joint motion to stay all remaining court deadlines while they finalize their agreement and prepare dismissal filings.
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
A bankruptcy court approved a settlement between ISE Professional Testing & Consulting Services and Synogen Management Group, releasing all claims and assigning a non‑mammalian biotech patent portfolio. The agreement satisfies statutory settlement factors and includes cash payments and patent assignments.
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science filed a bankruptcy motion to approve a settlement with Synogen and Nextgen Biologics that transfers ownership of a non‑mammalian tissue‑engineering patent portfolio. The settlement includes patent assignments, cash consideration, and mutual releases, aiming to end all related disputes.
RegenX Science Inc. v.NeXtGen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science and NeXtGen Biologics reached a settlement in a Chapter 11 case, assigning a non‑mammalian patent portfolio and providing cash consideration. The agreement releases all claims and dismisses related litigation, aiming to preserve estate value and satisfy creditors.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics challenges a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards, relied on faulty facts, and violated due process.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC filed a preliminary response to Amazon's IPR, arguing the petition lacks merit and that a pending settlement makes the review unnecessary, seeking discretionary denial.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. et al. v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the claims patent‑eligible and adequately supported. No claims were found unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ wireless‑communication patent. The petition challenges the Board’s discretionary denial, citing lack of settled expectations and examiner error. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also referenced.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. et al. v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Kingston Technology's request to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding the petitioner’s arguments on written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness unpersuasive.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Kingston Technology’s request to institute a post‑grant review of six claims of a NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger’s arguments on written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness insufficient.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial was rejected, leaving the ‘875 patent in force. The Board upheld the denial based on settled expectations and the pending district‑court trial schedule.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,071,207 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent. The petition challenges the Board's reliance on "settled expectations" and alleged factual errors. A prior settlement with Meta is highlighted as a factor.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
NVIDIA filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on its GPU‑based AI patent. The company contends the Board ignored key trial‑date evidence, the patent’s recent issuance, and the opponent’s failure to file a POPR.
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.