technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 10 of 36 · 1,070 total
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Petitioner OnePlus filed Director Review requests for IPR2025-00887 and IPR2025-00888. The PTAB Director limited the patent owner Pantech’s response to 15 pages, to be filed within five business days, and barred new evidence.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
The Director denied NVIDIA's request for rehearing of a discretionary denial of institution in an IPR involving patent RE49461. The original denial of institution remains in effect.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 8,368,201 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate a series of inter partes review proceedings before any institution decision was made.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal regulations, limiting public access to the document.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and patent holder ImberaTek have settled their dispute over patent 7,989,944 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The motion relies on good‑cause authority to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes covering eight patents. The Board terminated all IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement for the 8,368,201 patent dispute confidential and only disclose it under strict conditions.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes covering nine patents, leading the PTAB to terminate all related IPRs before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint PTAB petition to seal their settlement agreement, seeking to keep it confidential and limit access under federal regulations.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB Director has issued a review request for IPR2025-00438, directing the petitioner to file a concise response limited to the raised issues and prohibiting new evidence.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00413 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 9,045,101. The Board had previously instituted the review, but the parties seek early termination to conserve resources.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,045,101, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information, separate from the patent file.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC entered a settlement that grants Wise a royalty‑free license to several patents, includes a covenant not to sue, and results in the dismissal of both the related lawsuit and the IPR proceeding.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has requested Director Review of its IPR challenges (IPR2025-01008 and IPR2025-01009) against Palisade Technologies. The patent owner is limited to a 15‑page response within five business days and may not introduce new evidence.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
Court decision.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
Sony Interactive Entertainment and AX Wireless settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,917,272 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board granted the termination and confidentiality request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving patent 11,698,687, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies have jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b), separating it from the IPR file for patent 11,334,918.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
The PTAB Director has sent a Director Review request for Samsung's IPR challenge, requiring a concise, issue‑limited response within five business days and prohibiting new evidence.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
Court decision.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,620,701, leading the PTAB to dismiss the case before a trial was instituted. The settlement resolved all claims and the proceeding was terminated.
TikTok Inc. v.DiStefano Website Innovations, LLC
Institution of IPR2025-01061 was granted by the USPTO, allowing the challenge to proceed despite a stay on related proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including IPR2025‑01044 covering patent 11,516,879.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Wilus’s request for leave to address recent Director Review decisions and submit additional evidence in five IPRs involving Samsung. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01043, leaving the patent owner’s claims intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus requested permission to address recent PTAB director‑review decisions and submit new evidence for five IPRs against Samsung. The Director denied the request, leaving the IPRs proceeding without the proposed extensions or additional evidence.
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
Lattice Semiconductor and Technicolor have settled their dispute, executing a settlement agreement and requesting the court to vacate the upcoming case management conference. The settlement includes payment and a stipulation of dismissal, effectively ending the litigation.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Kaifi LLC and Amazon reached a settlement in principle, prompting a joint motion to stay all court deadlines while the parties finalize their agreement and prepare dismissal filings.
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.