US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 68 of 291 · 8,722 total
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron seeks director review of a PTAB denial to institute an IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent, arguing examiner error, improper settled‑expectations reliance, and national‑security stakes.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,334,918 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317 and cites Board policy favoring settlement before any merit decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
The PTAB Director has sent a Director Review request for Samsung's IPR challenge, requiring a concise, issue‑limited response within five business days and prohibiting new evidence.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
Court decision.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,620,701, leading the PTAB to dismiss the case before a trial was instituted. The settlement resolved all claims and the proceeding was terminated.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
An email informs Micron and Palisade that a Director Review has been requested for IPR2025-01008 (and 01009). The patent owner may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed, and the Director will decide on the request.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Longhorn Automotive's 8,265,353 patent covering CT‑PET motion correction. The petition alleges the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Weese, Muehllehner and Wainer. No institution decision has been made yet.
TikTok Inc. v.DiStefano Website Innovations, LLC
TikTok has filed a petition to invalidate all 26 claims of DiStefano’s ’316 patent, asserting obviousness over Block, Arnold, Arora, and Ahlberg references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Evolution Malta’s U.S. Patent No. 11,011,014 covering a roulette‑based wagering system. The petition relies on prior art references Kido, Yee, and Baron to argue anticipation and obviousness, and cites a district‑court finding of invalidity under Alice.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition challenging Evolution Malta’s ’024 roulette‑payout patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Kido, Yee, and Baron prior art.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Palisade's ’051 memory‑card patent, asserting obviousness over Diggs, Lin, and Thorsten references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and outlines four grounds of unpatentability.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s U.S. Patent 9,281,314 covering NAND flash memory structures. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references—Kang, Kang‑1, Purayath, and Murata—using Phillips claim‑construction standards. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of seven claims of SoundClear’s ’819 patent covering volume‑lock functionality in audio devices. The petition relies on prior‑art references Kajiyama, Shure, and Nelson to argue obviousness under §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of CM HK’s 11,698,687 patent covering a 3‑D pointing device. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Bassompiere prior art and lack written‑description support for quaternion‑based algorithms.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Evolution Malta’s ’371 roulette‑payout patent, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier gaming patents such as Kido, Yee, and Baron.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 69 claims of the ’971 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of Watanabe, Ribaudo, and Behrens prior art relating to Bluetooth beacon and proximity services.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 26 claims of U.S. Patent 11,443,344, which covers Bluetooth beacon‑based proximity services. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of Watanabe, Ribaudo, and Behrens references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of U.S. Patent 11,334,918 covering proximity‑beacon functionality in mobile devices. The challenger relies on obviousness arguments based on Ribaudo and its combination with Watanabe, Behrens, and Mgrdechian. The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
Wise PLC has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Intercurrency Software’s U.S. Patent 11,620,701, seeking to invalidate all sixteen claims as obvious over existing foreign‑exchange trading systems.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
Sony Interactive Entertainment has filed an IPR petition challenging AX Wireless’s 10,917,272 patent covering OFDM header repetition. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over a combination of the Hansen patent, the July 2005 WWiSE proposal, and Choi’s repetition‑coding publication under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Light & Wonder against Evolution Malta, finding a reasonable likelihood that Kido anticipates claims related to roulette wagering systems. The Board adopted a broad definition of 'payout' including progressive jackpots.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Evolution Malta Limited's patent (10629024), challenging claims related to internet-based wagering. The Board adopted a broad construction for 'payout,' finding that prior art reference Kido anticipates several key claims.
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
Light & Wonder, Inc. successfully secured institution in the IPR against Evolution Malta Limited regarding roulette wagering systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation grounds (102) and key claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. successfully moved forward in the IPR against CM HK LIMITED, achieving a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1. The Board focused heavily on obviousness arguments concerning sensor fusion and Kalman filter implementations using quaternion mathematics.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen Group of America successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claim 1's obviousness over Weese. The Board instituted review for all 18 claims and grounds due to procedural deficiencies by the Patent Owner.
TikTok Inc. v.DiStefano Website Innovations, LLC
Institution of IPR2025-01061 was granted by the USPTO, allowing the challenge to proceed despite a stay on related proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including IPR2025‑01044 covering patent 11,516,879.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung’s IPR against Wilus’s 802.11ax‑related patent remains alive after the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial was rebutted. The response highlights material examiner errors and the case’s technical diversity, urging the Director to deny the review request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus Institute asks the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR brought by Samsung, arguing that all challenged patents share the same 802.11ax Wi‑Fi technology and therefore do not meet the “diverse range of subject matter” standard.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Wilus’s request for leave to address recent Director Review decisions and submit additional evidence in five IPRs involving Samsung. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
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.