US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 78 of 188 · 5,620 total
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s power subsidiaries and patent owner Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes over a emissions‑control patent. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review concerning Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑8 and 10‑19 of Four Batons Wireless’s 8,239,671 patent. The petition relies on obviousness over three prior‑art references—Sood, Aboba, and Lee—and includes claim‑construction arguments for the term “key binding blob.”
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of a mercury‑removal patent, arguing obviousness and lack of priority support. The petition relies on prior art from early‑2000s conference papers and patents. Institution of the proceeding is pending.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
Sandisk and Western Digital petition to invalidate Polaris PowerLED’s ’968 patent covering interrupt coalescing in memory controllers, arguing obviousness over Borchers and industry standards. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review challenging Vasu Holdings' patent covering Wi‑Fi/cellular handover. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asks the PTAB to institute the review.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied a Patent Owner's request for Director Review, instead remanding the IPR cases to allow discovery on complex real parties in interest (RPI) and privity issues related to concurrent district court litigation.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director reviewed multiple IPRs involving Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Birchtech Corp., remanding the cases to the Board to consolidate parallel proceedings under a single petition per patent.
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.
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 concerning patent 11,849,843. The parties indicate they have settled, seeking dismissal of the proceeding.
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. have jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 following a settlement of their underlying dispute. The petition argues that the Board has not yet decided any merits, making termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) appropriate.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled four IPRs, including the 7,612,805 patent, resulting in a joint motion to terminate. The Board dismissed the petitions and kept the settlement documents confidential.
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.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings, LLC filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s Director Review Request in IPR2025‑00447. The response argues Samsung introduced new, unauthorized arguments and lacks merit on due‑process and APA grounds. The Board’s institution decision is portrayed as consistent with USPTO guidance.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung’s counsel filed a Director rehearing request after the USPTO denied institution of multiple IPRs against Vasu Holdings. The petition seeks to overturn the denial and keep the challenges active.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
The PTAB Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00447, leaving the original institution ruling in place.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
Sandisk and Western Digital have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Polaris PowerLED’s ’346 patent, asserting that its parity‑generation claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the claimed on‑the‑fly techniques and command distribution were well‑known and that discretionary denial is not warranted.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vasu Holdings' patent covering seamless handoff from Wi‑Fi to cellular networks. The petition relies on obviousness arguments using four prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial does not apply.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’339 patent covering in‑camera aberration correction, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Ouraring, Inc. et al.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Oura’s finger‑ring health‑monitor patent, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under the Fintiv provision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Ouraring, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted the IPR against Ouraring, Inc. et al., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The institution decision targets 17 claims related to smart rings and biometric monitoring technology.
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
NXP and Redstone Logics filed a joint motion to dismiss NXP as a co‑petitioner in IPR2025‑00485, citing an agreement in principle and statutory bars on further petitions. The Board’s authority to dismiss a co‑petitioner pre‑institution is argued, with no settlement‑agreement requirement.
Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,593,458 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential.
Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate an IPR concerning U.S. Patent 7,991,122. The PTAB granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential, ending the proceeding before trial.
Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s DSL‑crosstalk patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over three prior‑art references that were never considered during prosecution.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,421,188 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, and the Board granted the termination before instituting a trial.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,421,188. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Cerence’s in‑vehicle voice‑control patent was denied, leaving the original denial intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Cerence’s voice‑control patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that all Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial, rendering the review request untenable.
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.