US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 61 of 286 · 8,574 total
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed a petition for rehearing challenging the PTAB Director’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR against VirtaMove’s 2014 data‑migration patent. The petition argues the Director exceeded statutory authority and misapplied a “settled expectations” doctrine.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando’s IPR petition targeting XtreamEdge’s modular data‑processing patent is met with a robust preliminary response arguing that the cited prior art does not disclose key claim limitations, prompting a request for discretionary denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review contesting the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR on patent 9,609,510. The petition alleges due‑process violations, APA breaches, and unconstitutional discretionary denial practices.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
The USPTO has initiated a Director review of three AMD‑related IPRs after the Patent Owner claimed the Petitioners breached a Sotera stipulation by litigating the same invalidity arguments in district court. The proceedings are stayed pending briefing and a forthcoming opinion.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
AT&T and Nokia jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑00451 against Adaptive Spectrum's patent 9,954,631, filing a confidential settlement agreement. The PTAB granted the termination, ending the proceeding before any trial was instituted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and its co‑petitioner withdrew their request for rehearing in IPR2025‑00486. The Board granted the motion, ending the rehearing request and returning the case to the Board for further action.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for Director rehearing, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPRs. The company argues that the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation. Samsung seeks reversal of the denial and reinstatement of its petitions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Petition for Director Review contesting the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00483, arguing that the agency’s retroactive policy change violated due process, the APA, and statutory deadlines.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings opposes Samsung's Director Review Request, asserting the request raises new, unauthorized arguments and that Samsung lacks due‑process and APA grounds. The patent owner contends the Board’s actions complied with existing USPTO guidance.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00482, arguing the agency’s retroactive policy change violates due process, the APA, and statutory limits.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on Headwater’s patent 11,096,055. Headwater’s response argues the recission of the Vidal Memo was proper, that discretionary denial is statutorily authorized, and that no notice‑and‑comment rulemaking was required.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot and H2 Intellect settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 9,779,418 B2. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s Director Review Request, asserting the request contains unauthorized new arguments and that Samsung’s due‑process and APA claims lack merit. The patent owner contends the Acting Director acted in line with USPTO guidance.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00481. The company argues that the agency’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo and the new Fintiv discretionary denial framework violate due process, the APA, and statutory limits.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against H2 Intellect’s location‑based advertising patent. The petitioner contends the Board misapplied claim construction and ignored obviousness of key limitations. The request urges reversal of the denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of three IPR institution decisions after the Patent Owner claimed the Petitioners violated a Sotera stipulation by litigating the same invalidity issues in district court. The parties may file brief arguments, and the proceedings are stayed pending the Director’s opinion.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing, arguing that the PTAB’s discretionary denial of its IPR petitions violates due process and the APA after the USPTO retroactively rescinded the Vidal Memo. The company contends the Board ignored its timely Sotera stipulation, which should have shielded the petitions from denial.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
AMD and Pensando’s IPR petition against the ’596 patent is challenged by Concurrent Ventures and XtreamEdge, who argue the petition fails to identify claim construction and does not show prior art meets the claimed hardware queue limitations, seeking a discretionary denial of institution.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director rehearing request after the USPTO denied institution of its IPRs against Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,368,281.
Google LLC v.BrodTi Inc.
Google filed a reply in IPR2025‑00472 challenging BrodTi’s online‑advertising patent. The petitioner attacks the patent owner’s claim constructions and argues that the prior art makes the claims obvious under §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled all disputes and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering patent 8,451,339.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell, Ltd. opposes Coretronic and Optoma's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,549,226, arguing the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success due to flawed claim constructions and insufficient prior‑art support. The Patent Owner seeks denial of institution.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung filed a Director rehearing request after the PTAB denied institution of five related IPRs against Vasu Holdings’ patent. The petition also notes concurrent P‑TACTS submissions.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Iarnach Technologies filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Charter Communications’ IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,674,035. The owner contends the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that the cited prior art does not teach the claimed updates. The Board is asked to reject the petition.
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Coretronic’s IPR petition on its 8,593,580 projection‑type display patent. The owner contends the prior‑art references do not disclose key claim elements and the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings files an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Samsung's Director Review Request, arguing the petition raises new, unauthorized arguments and lacks due‑process and APA merit.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPR on the Wi‑Fi patent 10,206,154. The company argues the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA. Samsung requests reinstatement of the petition and forward to a merits panel.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
HydraFacial and Eunsung Global settled their IPR dispute before the Board could institute a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted, and the settlement agreement was kept confidential.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of its IPRs, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due process and the APA, and that the Board ignored Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation.
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.