US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 55 of 188 · 5,620 total
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen IPRs after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential. No claim merits were decided.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,374,721 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 11,374,721 patent covering grant‑free uplink transmission, citing Lee, Freda and Ly as obviousness prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 2021 LTE beam‑switching patent. The petition relies on the Chen patent combined with 3GPP standards and the Dahlman textbook to argue obviousness of all twelve claims under §103.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Corning’s 8,640,498 glass‑substrate patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over seven prior‑art references.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Canadian Solar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Trina Solar’s 2019 solar‑cell patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Jin, Feldmann and Chang.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Canadian Solar seeks to invalidate 11 claims of Trina Solar's 9,722,104 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art such as Jin, Feldmann, Chang, Seo, and Watabe. The petition requests institution and notes discretionary denial is inapplicable.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Apex Beam Technologies over a wireless communication patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the combination of Lee, Freda, and Ly renders claims 1-20 obvious.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 11 challenged claims of the solar cell patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that combining prior art references, particularly Chang and Jin, would motivate an ordinary skilled artisan to make the claimed structure with a reasonable expectation of success.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of VB Assets’ voice‑dialog patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over two pre‑2006 publications. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial is improper.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) while seeking to terminate the IPR.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑00930. The settlement agreement was kept confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00930 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,472,427. The Board had instituted the review earlier in the year, but the parties seek early termination citing efficiency and public policy.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Apex Beam’s LBT patent. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for settlement.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The PTAB granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
CommScope successfully defends its flexible cable bag patent as the PTAB denies Belden’s request for director review of a denied institution.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
Belden and PPC Broadband seek Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against CommScope’s flexible‑bag patent. They argue the Board mischaracterized an interference search as prior art and ignored material examiner error.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
Belden has requested Director Review of an IPR concerning CommScope’s patent 9,266,697. The patent owner may file a limited response within five business days.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
The USPTO Director denied Belden's request for review of the earlier decision denying institution of CommScope's patent 9,266,697. The denial upholds the original institution refusal.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Apex Beam’s 5G beam‑failure patent (U.S. 11637615). The challenger alleges obviousness over Cirik, Wu and InterDigital references, covering all 16 claims. The petition requests institution and argues no discretionary denial is warranted.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple files an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s U.S. Patent 10,986,695 covering uplink cancellation signaling. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Ying, Yang, Kim and Boroujeni. Detailed technical comparisons are provided to support the unpatentability argument.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
Belden and PPC Broadband petition PTAB to invalidate claims 9‑13 of CommScope’s cable payout bag patent, arguing obviousness over eight prior‑art combinations and improper claim constructions.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Lenovo and Motorola have filed an IPR petition challenging the ‘492 patent covering a hybrid turbo‑MUD system. They assert that the asserted claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art MUD references. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple petitions the PTAB to invalidate Apex Beam's 5G beam‑failure and LBT‑failure recovery patent, arguing obviousness over Cirik, Wu, and InterDigital.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Phelan Group, LLC's driver monitoring patent (11472427), arguing the technology is anticipated and obvious in light of prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully challenged Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent claims in a PTAB Institution Decision, arguing the wireless communications technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted review on all 16 claimed limitations based on combinations of prior art references including Cirik and Wu.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen challenged the validity of a GPS security patent, but the Board denied its request for Director Review, upholding the institution denial. The Patent Owner successfully argued that the Board considered the full prosecution record and settled expectations justified the denial.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Longhorn’s vehicle‑encryption patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred by relying on an interview summary, ignored prior art, and violated due‑process requirements.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
The USPTO denied Volkswagen’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute the IPR against Longhorn Automotive’s patent 8,085,192.
uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 1 and 3–5 of Force MOS’s 7,812,409 patent unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Hshieh, while claims 2 and 6 remained patentable.
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.