US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 57 of 188 · 5,620 total
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted ADC Solutions Auto’s petition to institute inter partes review of The Noco Company’s 11,584,243 B2 jump‑starter patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
In IPR2020‑00944, the PTAB held that 22 of the 23 claims of The Noco Company's jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding the claims anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. Claim 11 survived.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
Amazon and Datonics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,984,445 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties argue the agreement contains highly sensitive information that could harm their businesses if disclosed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
Amazon and Datonics have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,984,445 and jointly request the Board to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 7,519,814. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the lack of an institution decision and the settlement agreement. The Board is asked to grant the termination and keep the agreement confidential.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the PTAB’s discretionary denial of an IPR against OnePlus, keeping its LTE/5G patents intact. The Board found no examiner error or unpatentable prior art and affirmed the Director’s decision under § 314(a).
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of its IPR against Pantech's patent 9,288,824. The order applies to multiple related IPRs.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and cloud‑migration startup VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a decision that denied institution of an IPR against Pantech’s 4G/5G random‑access patent, arguing the Board misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and ignored examiner error. The request highlights the large, diverse patent portfolio in parallel district‑court litigation as a factor against discretionary denial.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Petitioner OnePlus has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00783, asking the PTAB to reconsider the institution decision; the Patent Owner may respond within five business days.
JinkoSolar Co., Ltd. et al. v.LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd. et al.
JinkoSolar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of LONGi’s U.S. Patent 9,515,214 covering solar battery modules. The challenger alleges obviousness over a suite of older solar‑cell references dating back to 1971. The petition requests the Board to institute review and invalidate the patent.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC has filed a petition to institute an IPR against The Noco Company's portable jump‑starter patent, arguing that all eleven claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Richardson, Zhao, Yu and Paparrizos.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Datonics’ ’445 patent covering targeted‑advertising methods. The petition argues all claims are obvious over prior art such as Gilmour, Merriman, Frauenhofer, and Julia, and disputes any discretionary denial.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1 and 7 of Pantech’s LTE random‑access patent, alleging lack of written description and anticipation/obviousness by several 3GPP specifications. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and requests institution of the review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
Amazon initiated an IPR against Datonics LLC's patent (US 10984445) concerning profile-based behavioral targeting. The PTAB decided to institute the proceeding, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable as obvious over prior art combinations.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The Board found that all eleven challenged claims of the jump starter apparatus patent were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The decision hinged on finding that Richardson and Zhao teachings, combined with common USB technology, satisfied the claim limitations.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Exhibit containing the final written decision outcomes for IPR2025-00879 involving TSMC and Marlin Semiconductor.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC seeks Director review of a denied institution decision, arguing that the ’747 patent was erroneously issued and threatens U.S. national‑security‑critical chip production. The petition highlights material examiner errors, lack of settled expectations by the patent owner, and the impact of the 2025 government shutdown on the Fintiv analysis.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR challenging Marlin Semiconductor’s 2015 metal‑oxide semiconductor transistor patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC investigation. TSMC and Apple’s arguments about size and investment were deemed immaterial.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The USPTO denied Director Review requests for four IPR institution decisions, including the challenge to Patent 9,093,473 owned by Marlin Semiconductor. Petitioners Taiwan Semiconductor and Apple’s bid to overturn the institution denial was rejected.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The Board notified the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00848 and IPR2025-00879. The Patent Owner may respond within five business days with a brief limited to the raised issues, and no new evidence is allowed.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
An email from the PTAB Director confirms receipt of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00864 and IPR2025-00865, outlining a 15‑page response limit and prohibiting new evidence. The patent owner must file its response within five business days.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to invalidate Marlin Semiconductor’s ’473 MOS transistor patent, asserting that all ten claims are obvious over prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and argues against discretionary denial.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Marlin Semiconductor’s FinFET patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations. The petition stresses the parallel ITC case and TSMC’s strong institution record. No claim construction is raised at this stage.
Amazon Web Services, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Amazon Web Services seeks to invalidate Croga Innovations’ 10,601,780 patent on network isolation, arguing that decades‑old firewall and virtualization techniques render the claims obvious. The petition cites the 2004 Nazario book and the 2010 Ghosh patent as prior art.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s ’747 patent covering FET manufacturing methods. They argue the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited and Apple Inc. successfully challenged Marlin Semiconductor Ltd.'s patent claims, leading to an institution decision where the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 11 claims. The grounds for unpatentability centered on anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), utilizing multiple prior art references including Lan, Wang407, and Chen.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD filed a request for rehearing after the PTAB Deputy Director denied institution of its IPR, arguing that its Instinct™ AI chips are vital to U.S. national security and AI competitiveness. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and referral to a merits panel.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding after it had been instituted.
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.