US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 75 of 188 · 5,620 total
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent (U.S. 11,626,904). The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent covering UE beam‑failure recovery. Samsung (as petitioner) showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on an obviousness ground under §103 using Liu and Jover. The Board declined discretionary denial despite related district‑court suits.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s ’904 patent covering multi‑antenna transmission. The petitioner asserts the claims are obvious over the Kim and Chen disclosures and seeks institution of the review.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Apex Beam’s U.S. Patent 10,568,113 covering LTE beam‑failure recovery. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over Xia, Jover, 3GPP‑LTE and Yi references under §103 and requests institution of the IPR.
Tesla Inc. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Granite Vehicle Ventures’ autonomous‑driving safety patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition lists eleven grounds of obviousness covering the full claim set. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Apple against Apex Beam, challenging 20 claims related to multi-antenna transmission in wireless systems. The Board found that Apple met the reasonable likelihood standard based on prior art references Kim and Chen.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple Inc. successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent 10,568,113, challenging claims based on obviousness over prior art including Xia and Jover.
NXP Semiconductors N .V. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung and NXP successfully invalidated a large portion of Harbor Island Dynamic's patent portfolio in the IPR proceeding. The Board found multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) using prior art references like Yu, Okashita, and Burgener. This final decision significantly weakens the patent owner’s position in semiconductor device technology.
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.
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.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging GenghisComm’s ’786 patent covering OFDM spread‑spectrum methods. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks an IPR to invalidate 20 claims of CATL’s (Ningde Amperex) lithium‑ion battery electrode patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for the petitioner's IPR challenge against U.S. Patent 12,015,118 B2, covering lithium-ion battery electrode structures. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both anticipation (Ishigaki) and obviousness grounds over multiple prior art references.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Director granted review of an IPR decision, vacating the institution finding for one set of grounds (Ishigaki-based) because the Board introduced external evidence, but maintained institution for the remaining claims.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia have entered a covenant not to sue with Headwater, filing a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00404 covering LTE patent 9,413,502. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia settled their IPR with Headwater Partners over patent 9,413,502, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 11,178,104. The parties cite statutory authority to protect the agreement’s commercial details.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,178,104. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petition before a trial was instituted.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson and Nokia have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Headwater Partners' 9,413,502 patent covering backhaul routing, asserting that earlier patents Ishii and Sfar make the claims obvious. They also argue the Board should not deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
Ericsson Inc. successfully petitioned to invalidate key claims of Headwater Partners II LLC's patent related to wireless backhaul systems. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable based on obviousness and anticipation over prior art (Ishii and Sfar).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung and Anonymous Media Research Holdings jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00558 before any institution decision, and the Board granted the termination to conserve resources.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent. The petition challenges the Board's reliance on "settled expectations" and alleged factual errors. A prior settlement with Meta is highlighted as a factor.
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.
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.
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.
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
Zepp Health and the University of Connecticut settled their IPR dispute over Patent 10,278,647 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, ending the proceeding before trial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The PTAB Director denied Samsung Electronics' request for a Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00535, upholding the earlier decision that the patent was not instituted. The order confirms the institution denial for patent 9,032,039 B2 owned by Mobile Data Technologies.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed a petition for rehearing, challenging the USPTO Director’s discretionary denial of institution for an IPR against VirtaMove’s cloud‑migration patent. The petition asserts the Director exceeded statutory authority and misapplied a "settled expectations" doctrine.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of the ’911 patent, alleging obviousness over Steuer and Eldering references and lack of written‑description support for video‑data features.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Schmidt‑479, Tormasov, Calder, and Schmidt‑629) under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
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.