US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 55 of 286 · 8,574 total
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ 2015 ‘039 patent was denied. The Board affirmed the Director’s discretionary denial, citing strong settled expectations and procedural compliance.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys seeks Director Review to vacate the Referral and Institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent, arguing the PTAB proceeding duplicates a pending Texas court trial and ignores key Fintiv factors. The request cites procedural errors and improper stipulations by the petitioner.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate six inter partes review proceedings before any hearing. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four inter partes review proceedings, leading the PTAB to terminate the cases before trial.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom patent holder KPN settled multi‑jurisdictional litigation by executing a settlement, license and non‑assertion agreement covering several audio/video coding patents. The agreement provides Samsung with a perpetual license and KPN with a covenant not to sue, and mandates dismissal of all pending lawsuits.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Bristol‑Myers Squibb successfully defended its PD‑1 antibody patent after the PTAB denied Amgen’s request for Director Review, finding no credible grounds to revisit the discretionary denial.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
An email notifies the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for two IPRs involving a semiconductor process patent. The patent owner is limited to a 15‑page response with no new evidence, and the Director will decide on the review.
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 argues the Board abused discretion by misapplying settled‑expectation doctrine and ignoring examiner error. Samsung seeks reversal and institution of the review.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom firm KPN have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning patent 9,462,544. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google’s request for Director Review of the TJTM patent was met with a forceful response from the patent owner, who cites 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and a delayed Sotera stipulation as reasons to deny the review. The PTAB had already denied institution of the underlying IPR.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics and Dutch telecom KPN entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR on KPN’s RE48089 patent. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn the referral and institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent. The company argues the PTAB misapplied Fintiv factors and that the parallel district‑court case makes the IPR redundant. It seeks termination of the proceeding under § 314(a).
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Petitioner Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks denial of Stratasys’s Director Review request, arguing the referral decision was proper and the Fintiv factors favor institution. The Board is urged to reject the request, keeping the 3‑D‑printing patents intact.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen seeks Director review of a denied institution for IPR2025‑00602, arguing that Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s Opdivo® flat‑dose patent is obvious and was improperly shielded by a discretionary denial based on settled expectations.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have settled their dispute over a PCB insulation patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the case on good‑cause grounds before institution.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology challenges Stratasys’s request for Director Review of an IPR on patent 9,168,698, arguing the referral decision was proper and no new grounds exist. The response stresses correct application of the Fintiv factors and a broad stipulation that avoids duplicate litigation.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys has requested a Director Review in IPR2025-00611 concerning its 3D‑printing patent 11886774. The petitioner must file a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence may be submitted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Keyless Licensing defends the PTAB’s denial of institution for Samsung’s IPR, arguing the Board correctly applied Fintiv factors and that Samsung lacks a right to an IPR. The patent owner also asserts the Acting Director’s discretionary denial was lawful.
RegenX Science Inc. v.NeXtGen Biologics, Inc.
Bankruptcy court approved a settlement between ISE and Synogen parties, including patent assignments and cash payments, leading to dismissal of related disputes.
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 36 claims of Neurelis' nasal benzodiazepine formulation patent are obvious over Gwozdz, Meezan ’962 and Cartt ’784, rendering the patent entirely unpatentable.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
An email notifying the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-00636, outlining a 15‑page, five‑day response limit and prohibiting new evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four related IPRs concerning Keyless Licensing's patent. The Board found no basis to overturn the prior institution denials.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025‑00526 and related cases, leaving the original denial of institution in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Keyless Licensing defends the PTAB’s denial of institution for Samsung’s IPR, arguing the Board correctly applied Fintiv factors and discretionary denial authority. The response rejects Samsung’s due‑process and procedural challenges.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against TJTM’s ’853 patent. The company alleges the USPTO retroactively applied new rules, violating due process and the APA. Google seeks vacatur of the denial and referral to the Board.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
An email from the PTAB Director notifies PacifiCorp and MES, Inc. that Director Review requests have been filed for two IPRs. The petitioner has five business days to submit a limited response, and no new evidence may be introduced.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR on Ningde Amperex’s lithium‑ion battery patent. The petitioner argues procedural errors, improper reliance on new evidence, and misinterpretation of prior‑art compaction‑density disclosures. It also urges denial based on parallel district‑court challenges.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health and Worcester Polytechnic Institute have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,713,428. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, which is pending before the Board.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery opposes Ningde Amperex’s request for Director Review, arguing the PTAB’s institution decision was proper and that no reversible error exists. The petition cites multiple prior‑art references that render all claims likely unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR against Keyless Licensing’s patent. The petition argues the Director relied on faulty facts about parallel litigation, that a broad Sotera‑style stipulation should preclude denial, and that the USPTO’s retroactive policy changes violate the APA and due‑process.
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.