US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 86 of 291 · 8,722 total
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted ADC Solutions Auto’s petition to institute inter partes review of The Noco Company’s 11,584,243 B2 jump‑starter patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and cloud‑migration startup VirtaMove settled their inter‑partes review dispute before trial, leading the Board to terminate the IPRs and keep the settlement confidential.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
In IPR2020‑00944, the PTAB held that 22 of the 23 claims of The Noco Company's jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding the claims anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. Claim 11 survived.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’814 virtualization patent, prompting a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
Amazon and Datonics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,984,445 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties argue the agreement contains highly sensitive information that could harm their businesses if disclosed.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion requesting that their settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion seeks to keep the agreement separate from the public patent file and restrict access.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and virtualization startup VirtaMove settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,519,814, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion to terminate IPR 2025-00850 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’814 patent. The Board is asked to end the inter partes review and keep the agreement confidential.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute over Patent 7,784,058. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement confidential.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b), citing the sensitivity of the information.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
Amazon and Datonics have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,984,445 and jointly request the Board to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties contend the agreement contains highly sensitive business information that could harm them if disclosed.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The parties claim disclosure would harm their business interests.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 7,519,814. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the lack of an institution decision and the settlement agreement. The Board is asked to grant the termination and keep the agreement confidential.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and cloud‑migration startup VirtaMove settled their IPR dispute, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings before trial.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Pantech successfully defended the PTAB’s discretionary denial of an IPR against OnePlus, keeping its LTE/5G patents intact. The Board found no examiner error or unpatentable prior art and affirmed the Director’s decision under § 314(a).
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of its IPR against Pantech's patent 9,288,824. The order applies to multiple related IPRs.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and cloud‑migration startup VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a decision that denied institution of an IPR against Pantech’s 4G/5G random‑access patent, arguing the Board misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and ignored examiner error. The request highlights the large, diverse patent portfolio in parallel district‑court litigation as a factor against discretionary denial.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute over patent 7,784,058. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,519,814. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board dismissed the petitions and kept the settlement confidential.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Petitioner OnePlus has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00783, asking the PTAB to reconsider the institution decision; the Patent Owner may respond within five business days.
JinkoSolar Co., Ltd. et al. v.LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd. et al.
JinkoSolar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of LONGi’s U.S. Patent 9,515,214 covering solar battery modules. The challenger alleges obviousness over a suite of older solar‑cell references dating back to 1971. The petition requests the Board to institute review and invalidate the patent.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 11 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over early‑2000s container technologies such as Linux VServer, Solaris Zones, and Zap pods.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft has filed a petition to invalidate 18 claims of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, alleging obviousness over the Callender patent. The petition argues that Callender is prior art under §102(e) and renders the claims unpatentable under §103.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s 7,519,814 patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC has filed a petition to institute an IPR against The Noco Company's portable jump‑starter patent, arguing that all eleven claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Richardson, Zhao, Yu and Paparrizos.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Datonics’ ’445 patent covering targeted‑advertising methods. The petition argues all claims are obvious over prior art such as Gilmour, Merriman, Frauenhofer, and Julia, and disputes any discretionary denial.
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.