US PTAB Patent Cases
8,574 decisions indexed
Page 97 of 286 · 8,574 total
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications' IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies' DOCSIS auto‑configuration patent is challenged by the patent owner, who argues the petitioner's reply adds new, undisclosed arguments, violating the IPR rules. The patent owner seeks dismissal of the new arguments and confirmation of the patent's validity.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,661 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
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 10,104,658 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits, and the parties cite statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for ending the proceeding.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola seeks rehearing of the PTAB Director’s order that vacated institution of its IPR on a body‑camera patent, arguing the rescission of prior guidance violates the APA and due process.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
The PTAB instituted an IPR on Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care likely to prevail on at least one claim, based on anticipation and obviousness arguments over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Garrison references.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its eight IPR petitions covering a body‑camera patent, arguing the PTAB must honor prior guidance that barred discretionary denial of institution.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB held that claims 13–15 and 17–20 of U.S. Patent 8,307,286 are unpatentable after finding the petitioner’s prior‑art references anticipate or render the claims obvious. The decision resolves the consolidated IPRs and denies the patent owner’s motions.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024‑01205, arguing the Patent Owner’s Director Review request is moot and the Board acted correctly under Fintiv factor analysis.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola’s petition to institute an IPR against Stellar’s 9,485,471 patent is challenged by Stellar, which seeks Director Review alleging the Board misapplied Fintiv factor guidance and failed to find compelling merits. The request targets claims 1‑13 of the patent.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola seeks rehearing of the USPTO Director’s decision to vacate institution of its IPRs covering body‑camera patents, arguing the rescission of prior guidance violates the APA and due process. It offers an expanded stipulation to satisfy discretionary standards.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
The PTAB denied Adobe’s request for Director Review of the institution decision on patent 6,757,828, leaving the institution intact.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn institution of 19 claims of its ’540 patent. The Director found the Board erred on Fintiv factors and denied institution, preserving Motorola Solutions’ position.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request in IPR2024-01281. Cisco must respond within five business days, limited to 15 pages and without new evidence.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco and Croga Innovations settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,738,368, resulting in a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding without a merits decision.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
RAI Strategic Holdings defends its ’202 patent against Demand Vape's IPR challenge, asserting the Board correctly applied Advanced Bionics precedent and that Fintiv factors favor denial due to an overlapping ITC case.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC seeks Director Review of the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against Motorola Solutions' wireless patents, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factor guidance and failed to find compelling merits.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Lionra Technologies’ request for review of the Board’s decision that all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 7,738,471 are unpatentable. Cisco argues the Board correctly applied Axonics precedent and that the prior art teaches the disputed limitation.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that Cisco’s high‑speed packet‑processing claims are unpatentable. The patent owner contends the Board erred in accepting a new reply theory and misapplied inherency standards.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s earlier denial was rejected. The Patent Owner contended that the cited prior art fails to teach the patent’s core limitation of concurrent network‑path failure.
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
Apple and NL Giken have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,948,968. The parties filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Early Warning Services filed an authorized response defending its right to submit new evidence with a reply to the patent owner’s preliminary response in IPR2024‑01221. The brief argues that the Board’s discretion was properly exercised and that the patent owner had no due‑process prejudice.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung and Cerence jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01267 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement as confidential and ending the proceeding.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,775,326, jointly moving to terminate the proceeding.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their inter partes review dispute over patent 9,262,864 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the Board granted the motion, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement confidential.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,740,926. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, which the Board granted, sealing the settlement agreement.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,091,992. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement confidential.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and restrict its access.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing jointly filed a motion to have their settlement agreement kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to separate the settlement materials from the public PTAB file.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display files a response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against Pictiva’s request for Director Review. The petitioner emphasizes that the Sotera stipulation and prior guidance make a discretionary denial inappropriate.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,245,374, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites settlement, lack of a preliminary response, and no institution decision as grounds for termination.
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.