US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 90 of 286 · 8,574 total
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
Home Depot and Security Technology settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,562,402. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the PTAB granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Secure Wi‑Fi LLC defends the PTAB’s denial of institution against Samsung’s request for Director Review, arguing the Board’s discretionary analysis of Fintiv factors was proper and the petitioner’s new arguments untimely.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,776,120 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) to end the proceeding before any merits are decided.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Cerence Operating Company opposes Google’s request for Director Review, asserting the Board properly denied institution under 35 U.S.C. §314(a). The patent owner emphasizes due‑process compliance and the correct application of Fintiv factors.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
EMKinetics seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that found ten claims of its medical‑device patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on unsupported presumptions of printed publication and admitted untimely rebuttal evidence, violating procedural rules.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed a rehearing request challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its 9,179,359 patent, arguing that the agency’s retroactive policy change and the new “Fintiv” framework violate due process and statutory limits.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that it believes misinterpreted the means‑plus‑function claim language in NL Giken’s video‑processing patent. The Patent Owner contends the Board’s construction flip‑flopping and procedural errors warrant vacatur under §314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research asks the PTAB Director to terminate Samsung's IPR after arguing the Board relied on a non‑petitioner theory and misapplied discretionary denial factors. The request targets the institution of claim 26 of U.S. Patent 9,179,359.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The petitioners and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled all disputes related to U.S. Patent 10,877,266. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board has not yet decided the merits, making termination appropriate.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The patent owner seeks Director Review in IPR2024-01406; the Board limited the petitioner’s response to five pages and barred new evidence.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request for two IPRs involving Western Digital and Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1. The petitioner must respond within five business days with a brief limited to the raised issues and cannot submit new evidence.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
RAI Strategic Holdings seeks Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Kangvape’s disposable vaporizer patent, arguing that a parallel ITC proceeding should preclude institution under the Fintiv factors.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01391 concerning U.S. Patent 9,586,659 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) before any final decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung challenges a Director Review request by Harbor Island Dynamic over U.S. Patent 9,245,826. The response argues that the Board’s claim construction and obviousness findings were correct and that no Director Review grounds exist.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Cerence Operating Company successfully defended the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its voice‑assistant patent, arguing that the Board acted within authority and that petitioners’ due‑process claims were unfounded.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung's request for Director Review of PTAB institution decisions in four IPRs, including the 9,245,826 patent, was denied. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against a media‑feed aggregation patent, alleging the board’s reasoning conflicts with earlier instituted petitions and misinterprets the Whitehead prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including IPR2024-01402 covering patent 7,745,886, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok’s Director Review request to invalidate a media‑aggregation patent was denied. The Board found TikTok’s claim mappings incoherent and noted the introduction of new, unauthorized arguments.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a panel's denial of institution for its challenge to a media‑feed aggregation patent, arguing the board’s reasoning conflicts with earlier decisions on identical claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its TSV patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial factors related to a pending district‑court trial date.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's petitions for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs, leaving the institution rulings in place.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. argues that Klein Tools' IPR petition fails on obviousness grounds, citing cumulative prior art and lack of motivation, and seeks denial of institution.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB denied Google and co‑petitioners' request for Director Review of a denied institution decision concerning Cerence's in‑car voice‑assistant patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research jointly filed a motion to treat their settlement agreement as confidential and terminate the IPR proceeding.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
Milwaukee Electric Tool and Keter seek Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Klein Tools over the Packout storage system. The owners argue the panel misapplied Fintiv factors, especially claim and prior‑art overlap, and failed to consider the lack of a Sotera stipulation. The petition asks for discretionary denial of institution.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have agreed to settle their patent dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266, planning to dismiss the case after a 45‑day stay.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving Samsung. The Board limited Samsung's response to five pages and five business days, prohibiting new evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on Harbor Island Dynamic’s semiconductor switching‑circuit patent. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied Fintiv precedent regarding the nearby district‑court trial date.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google successfully defended its IPR on a Bluetooth data‑exchange patent, and the PTAB denied the Patent Owner’s Director Review request, finding the new arguments unsupported.
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.