technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
666 decisions indexed
Page 12 of 23 · 666 total
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
An email from the PTAB Director informs Welch Allyn that iRhythm’s Director Review requests for multiple IPRs have been received, outlining a five‑business‑day deadline for a concise response and prohibiting new evidence.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB Director has received review requests for IPR2025-00349, -00350, and -00351. The petitioner must respond within five days, limited to five pages, with no new evidence.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB notified parties that Director Review requests for three IPRs have been received. The petitioner has five business days to submit a concise response limited to the raised issues, with no new evidence allowed.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB issued an institution decision for IPR2025-00349 on June 13, 2025. A later director‑review request by the patent owner was filed after the 14‑day deadline and was deemed untimely, so the Board will not consider it.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,982,110, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Microsoft’s challenge to all 18 claims of EyesMatch’s ’109 patent and granted Microsoft’s motion to join the earlier IPR2024‑00856, consolidating the proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,982,110 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of three IPRs after the patent owner claimed the petitioners breached a Sotera stipulation by litigating overlapping invalidity arguments in district court. The proceedings are stayed pending a decision on a motion to vacate the institution.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPR against Nutanix, arguing the Director misapplied assignor estoppel under 35 U.S.C. §314(a). The brief cites Federal Circuit precedent that assignor estoppel cannot block IPRs.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. filed a fee transmittal to request Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00322 concerning Nutanix’s patent 11,010,336. The filing includes payment of $452 and asserts small and micro entity status.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The PTAB denied Tessell’s request for Director Review of the earlier decision that denied institution of the IPR against Nutanix’s patent. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and NL Giken settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,094,236 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
ASUS filed a motion to withdraw its IPR petition against VideoLabs' patent after related Roku IPRs were settled, rendering its joinder motions moot. The Board will decide on the withdrawal request.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00250 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent holder NL Giken over U.S. Patent 8,094,236. The motion argues that termination is appropriate given the early stage of the proceeding and public policy favoring settlement.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. submitted an email to the PTAB Director requesting a rehearing after the Director Review denied institution of its IPR against Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The PTAB notified the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-00298. The petitioner is limited to a five‑page response filed within five business days, and no new evidence may be introduced.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris and Inpria have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,673,903 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board had previously instituted the proceeding but no merits were decided.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola Mobility settled their IPR challenge to Headwater Research’s patent 10,749,700, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola jointly moved with Headwater Research to terminate IPR 2024‑01181 after settling the dispute over Patent 10,749,700, including related district‑court litigation.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR disputes, leading to withdrawal of Director Review requests for three proceedings.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences LLC’s request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01132. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and applied the new Director’s Memorandum, leaving the institution in place.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion, citing good cause and confidentiality considerations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,710,473 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya jointly moved to end multiple IPRs covering patent 11,710,473. The PTAB granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology has filed a Director Review request in IPR2024‑00896. Samsung has five business days to submit a limited response, with no new evidence allowed.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination saves resources and promotes settlement policy.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology and Omachron reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-00690 concerning patent 10,117,550 B1. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The USPTO denied ADC Solutions Auto LLC's petitions for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs involving The Noco Company's patents, leaving the original decisions intact.
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
Court decision.
TransCore, LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑00443 concerning U.S. Patent 8,919,654. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
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.