technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 13 of 36 · 1,070 total
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
Petitioner OnePlus has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00783, asking the PTAB to reconsider the institution decision; the Patent Owner may respond within five business days.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Court decision.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Court decision.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
Court decision.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
An email notifies the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00864 and IPR2025-00865, outlining a 15‑page response limit and a five‑business‑day deadline, with no new evidence allowed.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
An email from the PTAB Director confirms receipt of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00864 and IPR2025-00865, outlining a 15‑page response limit and prohibiting new evidence. The patent owner must file its response within five business days.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
The PTAB denied AMD's request for rehearing of a Director's discretionary denial in IPR2025-00863, leaving the earlier denial of institution in place.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The exhibit summarizes PTAB IPR outcomes for TSMC, highlighting that about 42% of its challenged claims were found unpatentable.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Court decision.
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for a review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Sandpiper’s CDN patent (9,021,112). The institution of the patent remains in effect.
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
SIG SAUER and True Velocity settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,561,543, leading the Board to dismiss the proceeding before trial.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The USPTO denied Apple’s request for Director Review of institution decisions in six related IPRs, keeping the original institution rulings intact.
Wella Operations US LLC v.Olaplex, Inc.
The USPTO Office issued a notice detailing multiple institution decisions across various IPR and PGR proceedings.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2026-00109 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
LiftWerx USA Inc. v.Liftra IP ApS et al.
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2026-00102 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
The USPTO denied BPI Labs’ request for director review of the decision that had refused to institute IPR 2025-01346 against Eli Lilly’s patent 9,474,780. The original denial of institution remains in effect.
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01374, allowing the petitioner to proceed to trial. The decision was based on the petitioner meeting the non-discretionary standard of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,936,693. The parties jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, and the Board is asked to grant the termination.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review before it was instituted.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Apple and Advanced Coding Technologies reached a settlement, leading to the termination of an inter‑ partes review of Patent 8,230,101 B2. The Board granted the joint motion to end the proceeding and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑01068 before the Board could institute the review. The PTAB granted the motion, ending the proceeding and treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot and H2 Intellect settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 9,779,418 B2. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
The PTAB denied Home Depot's request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR against H2 Intellect's patent 8,433,296.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy Company and PacifiCorp filed a joint motion to end their IPR against BirchTech Corp., seeking to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Court decision.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Henri Daussi, LLC's motion to withdraw its IPR petition against ECNA, LLC's patent 9,398,791, while allowing the parties to file a joint motion to terminate the proceeding after settling.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
Henri Daussi, LLC filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its IPR petition after reaching a settlement with patent owner ECNA, LLC. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the parties seek termination of the proceeding.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
GE Healthcare and Johns Hopkins University jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00808 concerning patent 11,938,201. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding without prejudice and allowing future filing.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
The PTAB granted the parties’ joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential after the IPR was terminated by mutual agreement.
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
Henri Daussi, LLC and ECNA, LLC settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,398,791 B1 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review before the Board instituted the trial. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition.
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.