US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 58 of 286 · 8,574 total
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick, Inc. settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR before any institution, resulting in a confidential settlement and dismissal of the proceedings.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Coretronic’s IPR petition on its projection‑type image display patent. The owner contends the petitioners lack a reasonable likelihood of success because the cited references do not disclose or make obvious the claimed moveable mounting base. The Board is asked to reject the petition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Four Batons Wireless’s patent 8,798,006. The denial leaves the original institution decisions intact.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ 2015 wireless patent was denied. The patent owner’s response emphasizes strong settled expectations and consistency with prior Director decisions, arguing that the discretionary denial is proper under 35 U.S.C. §314.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Four Batons Wireless successfully opposed Samsung’s request for Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR on a Wi‑Fi authentication patent, resulting in the Board denying the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s Wi‑Fi security patent, arguing due‑process and APA violations.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00535/00536, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent intact.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to KPN’s RE48,089 patent was successful, finding all asserted claims unpatentable for obviousness over Olofsson and Kuruvilla. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim construction for “coverage assessment” and rejected the patent owner’s arguments about distinct elements and operational networks.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
The Director denied NVIDIA's request for rehearing of a discretionary denial of institution in an IPR involving patent RE49461. The original denial of institution remains in effect.
OtterBox v.SafeTray Products Ltd.
OtterBox and SafeTray Products settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,113,691 before the Board instituted a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted, and the proceeding was dismissed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the challenge to Four Batons Wireless’s patent 8,073,436. The denial leaves the earlier institution denials in place.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
An email notifies the parties that a Director Review request has been received in IPR2025-00613 and outlines the limited response requirements for the patent owner.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,732,909 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR, citing good cause and the early stage of the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Four Batons Wireless’s 8,073,436 patent, alleging due‑process and APA violations and improper use of discretionary denial factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of its IPR on patent 7,502,348, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violated due process and the APA.
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 that parallel district‑court litigation and procedural errors warrant discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Four Batons Wireless responded to Samsung’s request for Director Review of a denied institution, arguing the Board acted within its discretion under §314 and the Fintiv factors. The Board denied the review.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
VirtaMove successfully defended the Director's discretionary denial of institution for Google’s IPR, arguing statutory authority and rejecting judicial estoppel. The rehearing request was denied, leaving the IPR uninstated.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR against Keyless Licensing. The petition argues the Director misapplied the Fintiv factors, relied on erroneous facts, and retroactively applied new discretionary denial policies in violation of the APA and due‑process rights.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute several IPRs against Keyless Licensing’s patent. The order applies to four related IPRs and leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google seeks a rehearing of the PTAB Director’s decision denying institution of an IPR against VirtaMove’s 14‑year‑old patent, arguing the Director exceeded statutory authority and misapplied a "settled expectations" doctrine.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the USPTO’s discretionary denial of institution for patent 11,503,144. The petition argues the denial relied on mistaken facts, misapplied Fintiv factors, and violated procedural due‑process rules.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
Tire Stickers LLC authorizes payment of Director Review fees for IPR2025-00631 after the filing deadline precludes use of the standard P-TACTS system.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Keyless Licensing defends the PTAB’s denial of institution for Samsung’s IPR, emphasizing proper application of Fintiv factors and the lack of a statutory right to a review. The board’s discretionary denial stands, and the Director Review request is urged to be denied.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has requested Director Review of four IPRs against VirtaMove's software migration patent. The Patent Owner may respond within five business days with a limited brief and no new evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00537 and related proceedings, keeping the institution decisions intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a USPTO denial of institution for its IPR against Keyless Licensing. The petition argues the Director misapplied the Fintiv factors, relied on erroneous facts, and retroactively applied new discretionary denial policies, violating the APA and due‑process rights.
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
Zepp Health and the University of Connecticut entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,278,647. The parties jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR before the Board made an institution decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a denied institution was rejected. The Board upheld the discretionary denial, citing Fintiv factors and the lack of a statutory right to an IPR.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Micron Technology opposes Yangtze Memory’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on Micron’s 3D NAND patent. The response argues the petitioner’s claims of no parallel litigation and examiner error are unsupported and that procedural challenges were waived.
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.