Electronic devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
16 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 16 total
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Malikie Innovations’ dock patent, arguing they are obvious over the earlier Tsutsui Japanese application. The petition includes a technical expert declaration and asserts no discretionary denial applies.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
Dell Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of Cloud Byte’s cooling‑structure patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of inter‑ partes review and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. successfully moved forward in the IPR against CM HK LIMITED, achieving a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1. The Board focused heavily on obviousness arguments concerning sensor fusion and Kalman filter implementations using quaternion mathematics.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025‑00995, leaving the original denial of institution in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung Electronics successfully navigated a PTAB institution challenge against CM HK LIMITED regarding motion sensing technology. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims based on obviousness (103).
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial was rejected, leaving the ‘875 patent in force. The Board upheld the denial based on settled expectations and the pending district‑court trial schedule.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products settled their IPR dispute over patents 8,141,784; 8,919,654; and 10,452,968, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before a trial was instituted.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,972,654 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties seek dismissal under 35 U.S.C. §317.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a settlement that resolved all disputes over three patents. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
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.
TransCore, LP et al. v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products settled their IPR dispute over a handheld scanner patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings before trial, treating the settlement as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging three claims related to anisotropic heat-spreading panels used in electronic packaging. The petitioner argues that these claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, including Kuo and Nozaki/Hanai. Samsung also contends the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,950,469 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination saves resources and aligns with public‑policy goals.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the cited prior art was already considered in reexamination and that no material examiner error exists. The response also cites discretionary denial factors under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against DH International Ltd., finding insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments, specifically criticizing the Petitioner's use of hindsight in mapping prior art limitations onto the claimed electronic device.
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.