technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 14 of 36 · 1,070 total
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
The Director denied Intel’s request for rehearing of the discretionary denial and institution decision in IPR2025-00794, leaving the patent challenge uninstated.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
The USPTO denied Intel’s request for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial and the denial of institution in IPR2025‑00795, leaving the original decision intact.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
An email from the PTAB Director informs the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-00682 and IPR2025-00683, outlining a 15‑page, five‑day response window and prohibiting new evidence.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Court decision.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,070,530, leading to a joint motion that terminated the IPR proceeding before it was instituted.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00755 after resolving their dispute in district court, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have resolved their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,044,689 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The district‑court case involving the same patent was also dismissed.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial, resulting in a Board‑ordered termination of IPR2025-00752 covering patent 10,044,689.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00754 after settling their dispute, including dismissal of related district‑court litigation.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board terminated the proceeding on the parties' joint motion.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑00753 after settling their dispute and dismissing related district‑court litigation.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00751 concerning patent 9,876,771 after resolving related district‑court litigation.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings. The joint motion and stipulation with prejudice ended the challenge to patent 10,171,433.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their patent dispute, leading to the termination of three IPRs before any trial was instituted.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00697 after settling their dispute and dismissing related district‑court litigation.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00697 and related proceedings. The settlement was documented via a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice filed in federal court.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Court decision.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Court decision.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Court decision.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested Director Review for several IPRs involving Audio Pod’s patent 8738740. The Patent Owner must respond within five business days with a limited brief and no new evidence.
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
Withrow Networks has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-00775. Google, the petitioner, may submit a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence is allowed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Court decision.
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
Court decision.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
An email from the PTAB Director notifies PacifiCorp and MES, Inc. that Director Review requests have been filed for two IPRs. The petitioner has five business days to submit a limited response, and no new evidence may be introduced.
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). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the IPR file and restrict third‑party access.
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.