US PTAB Patent Cases
5,620 decisions indexed
Page 84 of 188 · 5,620 total
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo have settled the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 11,495,898 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential, seeking termination of the proceeding.
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Inter IKEA Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Pointwise Ventures’ ’812 patent, arguing anticipation by Darrell and obviousness over Boncyk, Darrell, and Fukuda.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
Shenzhen Fbtech and LiTime have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate LithiumHub’s 9,954,207 solid‑state lithium battery patent. They rely on prior art such as Pevear, Porsche, Poff, Grant and Koebler to argue obviousness and lack of novelty across all 21 claims.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Credo’s ’898 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues the patent was issued without substantive examination and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.
Linkplay Technology has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Sonos’s audio playback patent (U.S. 10,853,023) by asserting anticipation and obviousness over two prior‑art references, Barbe and Richenstein. The petition also argues that discretionary denial does not apply.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' request to institute a post‑grant review of six claims of its mixed‑level NAND flash memory patent, finding the petitioner had not shown any claim likely unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison’s petition to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the challenger failed to show any claim was likely unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash patent. The petitioner alleges the claims are abstract, lack written description, are indefinite, and are obvious over prior art. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,339,493 and jointly request the Board to treat the settlement agreement 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 No. 8,339,493, a camera‑technology patent. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,339,493 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPR before the Board could institute a trial, and the settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google’s request for Director Review of a PTAB institution denial was challenged by Pegasus’s counsel, who argued the Director’s decision was proper and that new arguments were improper. The response seeks to keep the denial in place.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other U.S. carriers have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for a patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. They argue the denial violated due process and ignored favorable factors such as a Sotera stipulation and economic interests.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the PTAB's decision not to institute several telecom-related IPRs against Pegasus Wireless Innovation. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Vervain’s ‘370 hybrid NAND‑flash patent, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art. The petition targets claims 1‑18 and seeks cancellation under §§ 112(a), 112(b), 103 and 101. Institution of the review is pending.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 5‑14 of Maxell’s ’493 electric‑camera patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and arguing against discretionary denial.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Intellectual Ventures’ ’138 patent covering UMTS radio‑bearer data selection, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that no discretionary denial grounds exist.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and major telecom carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s ’644 patent on MTC coverage enhancement, arguing the claims are anticipated and obvious over Lee, You, and Zhuang prior art.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of a 5G CQI‑table patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. They contend the claims are obvious over prior‑art standards documents and a PCT publication. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have filed an IPR petition challenging Procomm’s ‘521 patent covering venturi fan‑assisted cooling for telecom equipment, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art patents. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of all challenged claims.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success that several claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Eckert and Bucknell.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge brought by Micron Technology against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D memory device patents. The Board found the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over prior art references.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,199,072 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations have settled their IPR over patent 10,601,780 and jointly filed a request to keep the settlement agreement confidential. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00394 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,199,072. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination serves public‑policy interests.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director reviewed the PTAB's denial of institution for Samsung's IPR against Mullen Industries' 8,314,547 patent and affirmed the denial. The Director corrected the Board’s statutory interpretation of pre‑AIA §102(b) but upheld the discretionary denial under §314(a).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request to rehear its discretionary denial of institution in an IPR against Mullen Industries’ OLED display patent, citing a parallel district‑court trial and weak petition merits. The decision upholds the Director’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information, seeking to terminate IPR2025-00394 concerning patent 10,199,072.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to rehear a Director’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00365 covering Mullen’s 2022 patent. They contend the Board ignored the Vidal Memo’s guidance, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed the rules, leaving 92 claims unchallenged in district court.
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.