technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
666 decisions indexed
Page 13 of 23 · 666 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx reached a settlement that terminated the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,224,359 before the trial was instituted. The Board ordered the settlement and related license agreement to be kept confidential.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
The PTAB denied Abbott Laboratories' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including IPR2025-00116 covering Miracor Medical's patent 11,754,077 B1. The institution decisions remain in effect.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
The PTAB denied Director Review requests for three IPR institution decisions, including IPR2025-00115 concerning patent 11,674,517 owned by Miracor Medical and challenged by Abbott Laboratories. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Phison’s post‑grant review petition includes this exhibit of supporting evidence for its challenge to Vervain’s U.S. Patent 8,891,298.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
The USPTO denied Sinclair Pharma’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00145 concerning HydraFacial’s patent 11,865,287. The institution of the IPR remains in place.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
Court decision.
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
HydraFacial has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025‑00145, restricting the petitioner to a brief, evidence‑free response.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 10,880,592 after reaching a confidential settlement with NL Giken.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of institution in IPR2025-00227, finding the review inefficient and unnecessary after prior adjudication and a stipulation not to reassert the claims. Google’s petition for rehearing was rejected.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to rehear the Director's discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00227, arguing the denial exceeds statutory authority and misapplies the "settled expectations" doctrine.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Liberty Mutual and patent‑holder Intellectual Ventures have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,949,785 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues the proceeding is at an early stage with no merits decision.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The USPTO denied Digital Global Systems' request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute its IPR against DeepSig. The denial leaves the original institution denial in place.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco’s petition to reinstate an IPR against WSOU’s 8,982,691 patent was opposed by the patent owner, who argued the Director correctly denied institution based on efficiency factors and the limited weight of the Sotera stipulation.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco has filed a petition for rehearing after the Director vacated the institution of its IPR against patent 8,982,691. The company argues the Director overstepped authority by demanding a waiver of district‑court defenses.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR, accompanied by a confidential settlement agreement. The PTAB granted the termination and ordered the settlement to be kept confidential.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,434,958 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under settlement provisions of the patent law.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB denied ResMed’s request to waive the deadline for a Director Review in IPR2025-00157, finding the request untimely under the regulations.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Court decision.
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 and keep it separate from the patent file.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime reached a settlement that resolves all disputes, prompting a joint motion to terminate the IPR on patent 9,887,838. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties seek termination.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Court decision.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,972,654 B2 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement documents as confidential.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01322, leaving the institution of patent 9,022,294 B2 in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken over U.S. Patent 9,948,968. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, treating the settlement as confidential. The proceeding is now closed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2024-01345 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent holder NL Giken. The motion cites public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and requests Board approval to end the proceeding.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The patent owner DH International Ltd. has requested Director Review in IPR2024-01322 concerning Google LLC's challenge to U.S. Patent No. 9,022,294. The Board has limited the petitioner's response to a 15‑page brief addressing only the issues raised, with no new evidence permitted.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against DH International’s patent, rejecting claims of abuse of discretion and improper pre‑institution briefing.
Sterlite Technologies Inc. v.AFL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Court 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.