US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 89 of 286 · 8,574 total
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America challenges Cyandia’s notification‑method patent, arguing the Board correctly found no written description support for the dynamic alert step and that the owner’s 2008 provisional evidence is irrelevant. SAP seeks a Director denial of the owner’s review request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024‑01368, leaving the earlier denial of institution in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial that applied retroactively after the Vidal memo was rescinded. The petition argues due‑process violations and arbitrary weighting of Fintiv factors. Samsung seeks to submit a Sotera stipulation and have the institution decision vacated.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 18 claims of RapidPulse’s ’883 aspiration‑thrombectomy patent are unpatentable after finding them obvious over Teigen, Grey and other prior art.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The USPTO denied SAP America's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01433, leaving Cyandia's patent 8,751,948 B2 instituted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung Electronics and SiOnyx reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-01431 concerning patent 11,069,737 B2. The settlement agreement is kept confidential per statutory requirements.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
Cyandia challenges SAP’s institution of an IPR on its notification‑alert patent, asserting the Board ignored key prior‑art and misapplied written‑description analysis. The patent owner seeks director review to vacate the decision.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cyandia’s WebSphere‑related patent, arguing the Board’s reliance on speculative overlap and misapplication of Sotera precedent. The petition urges the Director to overturn the denial and institute review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request to overturn a PTAB institution denial that relied on a rescinded Vidal memo. The petitioner contends lack of notice of retroactive effect and arbitrary weighting of Fintiv factors, seeking to submit a Sotera stipulation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a Petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR on the ‘384 Wi‑Fi patent. The challenger contends the retroactive rescission of the Vidal memo and the Board’s Fintiv factor analysis violated due process.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR concerning patent 9,571,833.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging and Rotolight filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate the documents from the public patent file.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple filed a response defending the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑32 of Varia’s RFID‑enabled mobile device patent are obvious. The company argues the Board correctly relied on intrinsic record and prior art, not on the patent owner’s functional‑emulation arguments.
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
The IPR concerning patent 10,890,925 was terminated after the parties reached a settlement. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to be treated as confidential business information.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB denied Western Digital's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving patent 11,968,909. The institution rulings therefore remain in place.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple’s petition argues that the PTAB correctly found Varia’s RFID‑related claims obvious over Willgert‑Mooney, rejecting the patent owner’s construction and a Director Review request. The Board denied the request, leaving all 19 claims unpatentable.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications challenges Iarnach Technologies' 9,287,982 patent covering DOCSIS‑based EPON provisioning. The patent owner argues the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of invalidity and invokes Fintiv factors to seek a discretionary denial of institution.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
Adobe’s IPR on patent 6,757,828 was instituted, with the Board finding claim 1 obvious over Rieger and accepting Adobe’s claim construction. The patent owner’s request for Director review was argued to lack merit.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging and Rotolight settled their dispute over four USPTO patents, leading the Board to terminate four IPRs before any merits were decided and to keep the settlement confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Varia Holdings LLC requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found Apple’s RFID‑emulation patent claims unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on a new, unsupported “functional emulation” theory not raised in the Petition. The request seeks reversal of the unpatentability findings for all 19 claims.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Feit Electric seeks Director Review to vacate the institution of two consolidated IPRs covering its LED lighting patent, citing failure to disclose a Chinese parent company and contradictory claim‑construction arguments by the petitioners.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Feit Electric requests Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s denial of its motion to terminate an IPR, arguing that petitioners presented inconsistent claim constructions across forums.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
Adobe seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision for IPR2024‑01352, arguing the Board’s claim construction lacks evidentiary support and that the Fintiv discretionary factors were misapplied. The Patent Owner requests denial of institution.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals filed an IPR against Axsome Malta’s 11,560,354 patent. The parties settled the dispute early and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
Security Technology, LLC asks the PTAB Director to deny institution of an IPR filed by Home Depot, arguing the panel misapplied Fintiv discretionary factors and that the petitioner's expert testimony is weak. The request highlights the close timing of the district‑court trial and the substantial prior investment in parallel litigation.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications’ IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies’ 9,287,982 patent was deemed insufficient. The Patent Owner’s response argues the petitioner ignored the limiting preamble and failed to provide particularized obviousness arguments.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Palo Alto Networks and Croga Innovations filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality protections and seeking to separate the document from the IPR record.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,776,120, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before any merits were decided.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals filed a joint motion with Axsome Malta to terminate IPR2024‑01418 after reaching a confidential settlement, resulting in dismissal of the petition before institution.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,390,137 before trial. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
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.