US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 77 of 188 · 5,620 total
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The USPTO denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00431, leaving the institution of Ningde Amperex's battery patent intact.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex Technology's lithium‑ion battery patent, arguing that the claimed electrolyte ratios and electrode compaction ranges are obvious in view of Zeng, Sunose, Matsuoka, Kim and other references. The petitioner seeks a finding that all 17 claims are unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research’s patent on security techniques for device‑assisted services, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑7, 12 and 14‑17 of Ningde Amperex’s ’131 lithium‑ion battery patent, asserting obviousness over multiple foreign and U.S. references.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found that the challenged claims related to lithium-ion battery electrolytes were obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully argued that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would be motivated to combine elements from Zeng, Sunose, and Matsuoka to achieve improved performance. This ruling advances the scope of obviousness findings in advanced energy storage technology.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight claims of Sinotechnix's LED illumination lens patent, arguing that prior‑art lenses (Tawa, Shikama, Scharf) render the claims obvious or anticipated. The petition also argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate six inter partes review proceedings before any hearing. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom patent holder KPN settled multi‑jurisdictional litigation by executing a settlement, license and non‑assertion agreement covering several audio/video coding patents. The agreement provides Samsung with a perpetual license and KPN with a covenant not to sue, and mandates dismissal of all pending lawsuits.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics and Dutch telecom KPN entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR on KPN’s RE48089 patent. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
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.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging KPN’s U.S. Patent 9,462,544, asserting that claim 1 is obvious over multiple LTE‑related prior art references. The petition seeks institution and argues the Board should not deny it under discretionary standards.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Aviel Rubin, an expert for Four Batons, argues that Samsung’s prior‑art references do not render any claims of the ’671 patent obvious. He rejects all four grounds of unpatentability, suggesting the petition lacks merit.
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.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 merit under due‑process and APA grounds. The patent owner asserts the Acting Director correctly applied USPTO guidance and the holistic Fintiv analysis.
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.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.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,368,281. The denial leaves the original institution denials in place.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPRs covering U.S. Patent 10,368,281. The petition argues that the Board’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due‑process and the APA, and that the Board failed to consider Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation. Samsung seeks reinstatement of the petitions for a merits panel.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung filed a Director review request after the USPTO denied institution of its IPRs against Vasu Holdings. The email cites concurrent P‑TACTS filings and asks the Director to overturn the denial.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a Director rehearing request after the PTAB denied institution of five IPRs against Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,419,996. The petition seeks reversal of the discretionary denial under § 314(a) and notes concurrent P‑TACTS filings.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES’s 10,596,517 patent covering mercury‑removal sorbents after finding the petitioners’ obviousness and anticipation arguments credible.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,596,517 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and WEC Energy Group have settled the IPR concerning patent 10,596,517 and seek to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its constituents have moved to terminate the IPR concerning the ’517 emissions patent after WEC Energy Group settled with BirchTech. The motion cites statutory requirements and public policy favoring settlement before any merits decision.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
BirchTech Corp. seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB's institution of an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing MDL efficiency and misapplication of the 315(b) time‑bar. The petition references a $30 million settlement and extensive prior litigation.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. jointly moved to terminate the IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreements confidential under statutory provisions. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations to support the request.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliate MidAmerican Energy have moved to keep their settlement with BirchTech Corp. confidential, invoking federal statutes to limit disclosure. The Board has been asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES’s mercury‑removal patent after Berkshire Hathaway Energy demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1‑15 and 17‑30.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB terminated the IPR against WEC Energy Group after the parties settled, but the case remains open for Berkshire Hathaway Energy, MidAmerican Energy and PacifiCorp. The settlement agreement is treated as business‑confidential information.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp continued their IPRs after MidAmerican Energy settled the dispute. The Board terminated the IPRs as to MidAmerican, treating the settlement as confidential, while leaving the remaining petitioners' cases open.
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.