US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 78 of 291 · 8,722 total
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 18 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent. They argue the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and that collateral estoppel bars re‑litigation.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Telcom Ventures’ U.S. Patent 11,937,172, arguing the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering NFC‑based mobile payments and biometric authentication.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’743 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering NFC‑based mobile payments.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Telcom Ventures’ U.S. Patent 10,219,199, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering NFC‑based mobile payments.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Institution of inter partes review (IPR2025-01356) was granted after a merits review, confirming the petitioner's reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01267 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision confirms the proceeding will move forward to merits review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against patent 12268475 involving Samsung Electronics and Omni Medsci.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01253 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01252, allowing the challenger to proceed with the review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01251, allowing SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. to challenge OMNI MEDSCI, INC.'s patent 10874304.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against patent 9651533 involving Samsung Electronics and Omni Medsci.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The Board denied institution in IPR2025-01238 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01237, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The decision reviewed multiple other proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its 802.11ax Wi‑Fi patent, arguing the Board ignored settled expectations, misapplied the diverse‑subject‑matter test, and ignored Samsung’s contradictory indefiniteness positions.
Perplexity AI, Inc. v.Comet ML, Inc.
Perplexity AI and Comet ML reached a settlement covering all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,650,968, prompting the PTAB to terminate the IPR before instituting trial and to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01069, leaving the institution of the Wilus patent intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung challenges Wilus’s request for Director Review of the IPR institution, arguing examiner error and consistent claim constructions. The petitioner seeks denial of the review so the IPR can proceed.
Perplexity AI, Inc. v.Comet ML, Inc.
Perplexity AI and Comet ML have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,650,968 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Wilus Institute’s U.S. Patent 10,313,077 covering Wi‑Fi coexistence signaling. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple IEEE 802.11‑related prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Perplexity AI, Inc. v.Comet ML, Inc.
Perplexity AI has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twelve claims of Comet ML’s neural‑network training patent. The challenger asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references—Baker, Lorenz, Shridhar, and Jenatton—under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics challenged Wilus Institute's patent claims (1-14) for obviousness over prior art related to Wi-Fi signaling standards. The PTAB found the Petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, instituting the IPR on all 14 claims.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering Apple’s wireless device feedback patent. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning patent 10,965,434. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for ending the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled sixteen inter partes review proceedings covering patent 11,546,110. The Board granted joint motions to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 11,546,110 covering multi‑antenna transmission technology.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a confidential settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent.
Tesla Inc. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of a self‑driving vehicle patent owned by Granite Vehicle Ventures, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
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.