Computer hardware — US PTAB Patent Cases
129 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 5 · 129 total
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Pat. No. 8,676,877 B2. The parties filed a joint motion, and the PTAB terminated the inter partes review.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and ACS settled their GPU patent dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR after it had been instituted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their GPU‑related patent dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple and Advanced Coding Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,230,101 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over a GPU clustering patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, leading the Board to end the proceeding.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 10333768.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,676,877 B2 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The PTAB granted the motion, ending the proceeding without a merits decision.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,140,612 B2.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems jointly moved to terminate IPR2020-01608 concerning patent 8,082,289 B2 after the Board had instituted the review. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding without a final written decision.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,140,612 B2, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The PTAB denied Tessell's petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nutanix patents, leaving the institution denials intact.
Citadel Securities LLC v.HFT Solutions, LLC
Citadel Securities petitions the PTAB to invalidate 11 claims of HFT Solutions' FPGA‑PLL synchronization patent, asserting that the invention was already disclosed in Altera’s white paper and related technical manuals, as well as a 2012 academic paper on low‑latency trading.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
NVIDIA has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR on its GPU‑related patent. The company contends the Board ignored time‑to‑trial statistics and the lack of commercialization, which should favor institution.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
NVIDIA has filed a petition for inter partes review of Neural AI’s U.S. Patent 8,648,867, seeking to invalidate claims 1‑19 on obviousness grounds. The petition relies on NVIDIA’s own earlier patents (Nickolls and Kirk) together with the GPU Gems book to show that the claimed accelerator controller and pointer‑swapping were known.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00613, leaving the IPR uninstituted.
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
Sandisk and Western Digital petition to invalidate Polaris PowerLED’s ’968 patent covering interrupt coalescing in memory controllers, arguing obviousness over Borchers and industry standards. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
SAP America seeks an IPR to invalidate Valtrus’s 6,871,264 patent covering a multi‑processor cache allocation system, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier patents. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ petition for post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding no sufficient evidence that claims 1‑6 are unpatentable.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted AMD and Pensando’s request for rehearing, vacated the earlier discretionary denial of institution, and sent the IPR back to the Board for a standard institution decision.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial of institution was rejected. The Board found Arm lacked a concrete interest and the prior art cited was cumulative, supporting the denial.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm Ltd filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial that blocked an IPR on its multicore processor patent (U.S. 8,984,228). The petition cites the settlement of related litigation and prior Board findings that identical claims were invalid over the Sinharoy reference.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm Ltd petitions the PTAB Director to vacate a discretionary denial and institute an IPR on its multicore processor patent after the related Texas lawsuit was settled and dismissed.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm and MediaTek have filed an IPR petition challenging Daedalus Prime's multicore cache coherence patent, asserting that all claims are obvious over prior art such as Agarwal, Sinharoy, Blumrich, and Sistla.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC's patent (9887838). The Board found that MediaTek presented a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) across all 24 claimed claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’595 patent succeeded. All 24 claims were found obvious over prior‑art references Hazelzet, Buchmann and, for certain claims, Kim, rendering the patent unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged Netlist’s 8,489,837 patent in an IPR, leading the PTAB to find all five asserted claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art. The Board rejected the patent owner’s constructions and upheld Samsung’s obviousness arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung filed an authorized response defending the PTAB's institution of an IPR against Netlist over a memory‑module signaling patent. The brief argues the Board correctly construed the claim language and that the six grounds are obvious over Hazelzet. Netlist's challenges on waste of resources and new arguments are rejected.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 29 claims of Netlist’s ’623 memory‑module patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior art, in a decision favoring Samsung’s SK Hynix petitioners.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs against Netlist’s memory‑module patents, keeping the institution rulings in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Netlist’s 11,880,319 patent covering memory‑module signaling. The petition relies on obviousness over Hazelzet combined with JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang, and Kim references, and cites prior IPR estoppel. The Board has yet to rule.
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.