technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 12 of 36 · 1,070 total
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled sixteen inter partes review proceedings covering patent 11,546,110. The Board granted joint motions to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a confidential settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google’s request for Director Review of the TJTM patent was met with a forceful response from the patent owner, who cites 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and a delayed Sotera stipulation as reasons to deny the review. The PTAB had already denied institution of the underlying IPR.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against TJTM’s ’853 patent. The company alleges the USPTO retroactively applied new rules, violating due process and the APA. Google seeks vacatur of the denial and referral to the Board.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate nine inter partes review proceedings before any institution decision. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate a series of inter partes reviews covering multiple patents before any institution decision was made.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB could institute a trial. The Board granted the joint motions, treated the settlement as confidential, and terminated the proceedings.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Court decision.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Wilus's request to address recent director review decisions and submit new evidence for five IPRs involving Samsung. Wilus sought a short extension to incorporate claim‑construction arguments from pending district‑court litigation, but the Director upheld the existing schedule.
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 decision in IPR2025-00935, leaving the institution standing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung’s request to delay IPR institution by invoking recent Director Review rulings was denied. Wilus sought a short deadline extension to submit new evidence, while Samsung wanted a longer pause pending district‑court claim constructions. The PTAB emphasized statutory timing limits.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of institution decisions in multiple IPRs, leaving the institutions in place.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Lowenstein and Weatherwax LLP
The USPTO denied NVIDIA’s request for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial of institution in four IPRs, leaving the original denial in place.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam reached a settlement that terminated 16 inter partes review proceedings covering multiple patents. The Board granted the joint motion, treating the settlement documents as confidential.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and patent owner Advanced Cluster Systems have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 12,021,679. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues termination is appropriate before any merits are decided.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Court decision.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement, and the PTAB granted the termination.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) while seeking to terminate the IPR.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑00930. The settlement agreement was kept confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
Belden has requested Director Review of an IPR concerning CommScope’s patent 9,266,697. The patent owner may file a limited response within five business days.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Court decision.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,465 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to terminate the ongoing IPR. The Board is asked to seal the agreement from public disclosure.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00919 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 10,259,465.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,855,720 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
Amazon and Datonics have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,984,445 and jointly request the Board to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of its IPR against Pantech's patent 9,288,824. The order applies to multiple related IPRs.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,519,814. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board dismissed the petitions and kept the settlement 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.