US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 94 of 286 · 8,574 total
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR for patent 7,912,257. The motion cites settlement, lack of a preliminary response, and no institution decision as grounds for termination.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.
The PTAB denied Home Depot's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs, leaving the institution of RavenWhite Security's patents intact.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01322, leaving the institution of patent 9,022,294 B2 in place.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
LEDup Manufacturing filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the PTAB’s decision that dependent claims 3 and 8 of the ’794 patent remain patentable. The appeal targets the Board’s claim‑construction and other adverse rulings, and is now before the Federal Circuit.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,776,120 and jointly request the Board to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
The USPTO Director denied Tableau Software’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2024-01388, leaving the original decision intact. No new arguments or evidence altered the Board’s assessment.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken over U.S. Patent 9,948,968. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, treating the settlement as confidential. The proceeding is now closed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2024-01345 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent holder NL Giken. The motion cites public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and requests Board approval to end the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon’s petition for Director Review of the institution decision on NL Giken’s patent 9,948,968 was denied, leaving the institution intact.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB denied Hulu's petition to institute an IPR against Piranha Media's eSports event platform patent, citing a prior district‑court §101 invalidity ruling and efficiency concerns.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon files a response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against NL Giken, arguing the Board’s claim constructions are correct and discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Hulu seeks Director Review of two instituted IPRs covering its streaming‑technology patent after a district court ruled the claims invalid under §101. The patent owner argues the Board should deny institution under Fintiv and the Trial Practice Guide, and stay the proceedings.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential and kept separate from the patent record.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB held that all seven claims of The Noco Company's portable jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over prior‑art jump‑starter and USB‑charging references. The decision follows a petition by Deltran USA LLC asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB held that all eight challenged claims of the Noco Company’s jump‑starter patent are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering them unpatentable.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
iCharts LLC submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Tableau Software’s request for Director Review of the institution decision that denied an IPR on patent 9,712,595. The brief argues the dissent does not create a reasonable likelihood of success and that the Board’s findings on the prior art were correct.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate four inter partes review proceedings before institution.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems and Croga Innovations have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,223,601 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and the Board’s guidance favoring settlement.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon and other camera makers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 7,612,805. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against The Noco Company's 11,584,243 B2 jump‑starter patent. The petitioner, Deltran USA LLC, persuaded the Board that at least one claim is likely unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations such as Richardson + Zhao. All eight challenged claims are now subject to trial.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB sent an email notifying the parties that the patent owner has filed Director Review requests for IPR2024‑01284, ‑01285, ‑01313 and ‑01314. The petitioner may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request for IPR2024-01310. Genius Sports Ltd. must submit a concise response within five business days, and no new evidence may be introduced.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Secure Wi‑Fi LLC defended the PTAB’s denial of institution against Samsung’s request for Director review, arguing the Board’s use of Fintiv factors was proper and the petitioner’s new arguments untimely. The Board’s decision stands.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB denied Hulu’s petition to institute inter partes review of Piranha Media’s eSports patent, finding the petition failed the compelling merits standard. No claims were instituted or found unpatentable.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Hulu filed an authorized response opposing the patent owner’s request to deny institution of an IPR covering U.S. Patent 11,463,768. The Board applied Fintiv factors and found no basis to block institution, keeping the challenge alive.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01394 over patent 9,438,615, citing a settlement and the early stage of the proceeding.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Hulu’s parallel IPR petitions against Piranha Media’s streaming‑technology patent were instituted despite a district court finding all claims invalid under §101. The patent owner seeks Director Review, arguing the panel should have denied institution under Fintiv guidance and the Trial Practice Guide.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB denied Hulu’s petition to institute an IPR against Piranha Media’s eSports platform patent, citing the patent’s prior invalidation in district court. The Board exercised its §314(a) discretion, concluding that proceeding would be inefficient.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research entered a settlement that led to a joint motion to terminate the IPR over patent 8,588,110. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the proceeding and treating the settlement documents as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,986,585 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy supports termination after settlement.
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.