US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 95 of 286 · 8,574 total
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Stratus Medical defends U.S. Patent 10,736,688 against Avanos Medical’s IPR petition, arguing that the challenges are based on vague, non‑enabling prior art and lack obviousness. The Board has already instituted the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,588,110 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under the statutory termination provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing filed a joint request with the PTAB to have their settlement materials treated as business‑confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). The request seeks to keep the settlement separate from the public file and limit access to government agencies or parties showing good cause.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Stratus Medical defends its RF neurotomy patent against Avanos Medical’s IPR challenge, arguing the prior art is non‑analogous, vague, and non‑enabling, and highlighting commercial success and industry praise as evidence of non‑obviousness.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB held that all 20 claims of Exact Sciences' 11,634,781 patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable. Geneoscopy successfully proved the combination of existing fecal screening methods made the claims non‑inventive.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Exact Sciences seeks Director Review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found its at‑home stool‑based colorectal cancer screening patent unpatentable. The request argues the petitioner’s inconsistent claim constructions and reliance on contradictory expert testimony violated Board policy.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and patent holder K.Mizra have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,111,608 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and K. Mizra settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,160,466. The Board terminated the proceeding without a merits decision, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the pending IPR over patent 10,652,111.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
The PTAB terminated IPR2024-01324 (patent 9,098,855) after Quotient Technology and Intelligent Clearing Network reached a settlement, filing a joint motion to end the review.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01239 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’111 patent. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties seek termination for judicial economy.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,830,821, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The patent owner DH International Ltd. has requested Director Review in IPR2024-01322 concerning Google LLC's challenge to U.S. Patent No. 9,022,294. The Board has limited the petitioner's response to a 15‑page brief addressing only the issues raised, with no new evidence permitted.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions jointly request that their settlement agreement be treated as confidential business information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions have entered a settlement agreement and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR on patent 9,098,855.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial that blocked its IPR on three MPLS‑related claims of Orckit’s ’821 patent. The petition alleges the Board’s claim construction was unsupported and that the prior‑art combination teaches the challenged limitation.
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
Garmin and Saris Equipment jointly moved to end the IPR over patent 10,434,394 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, terminating the proceeding and sealing the settlement agreement.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, asking the PTAB to restrict public access.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies opposes the patent owner's request for director review, arguing the deposition dispute is moot and that the cited references are printed publications supporting the institution of inter partes review.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
DH International Ltd. seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its Bluetooth‑related patent, arguing the Board used an improper subjective standard and that the cited prior art does not teach the required activation cue.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against DH International’s patent, rejecting claims of abuse of discretion and improper pre‑institution briefing.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies and Cambridge Enterprise Limited jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01235 after reaching a settlement agreement. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in a Texas district court case, planning to dismiss the lawsuit after a 45‑day stay. The agreement ends the dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
Thermaltake files a response urging the PTAB to deny Lian Li’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in a lighting‑technology patent. The brief stresses procedural impropriety and the lack of any new legal or factual issues.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding and to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.
RavenWhite Security has filed a Request for Director Review to block an IPR on its web‑cookie patent, arguing the PTAB panel misapplied the Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors and that the petitioner’s obviousness arguments are weak. The request seeks a denial of institution for claims 1‑10.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution, arguing the Board erred on the printed‑publication requirement and relied on inadmissible hearsay. The Patent Owner contends the petitioner failed to provide evidence that cited references qualify as printed publications and refused to make a key expert available for deposition.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have entered a settlement, and 3Shape filed a joint request to keep the agreement confidential under patent law provisions. The motion seeks to limit disclosure to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
Hugging Face, Inc. v.FriendliAI Inc.
Hugging Face and FriendliAI settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,442,775 B1, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement documents were ordered 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.