technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 15 of 36 · 1,070 total
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,908,508, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review that had been instituted earlier in the year.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB Director emailed the parties confirming receipt of petitioner’s Director Review requests for six IPRs, including IPR2025-00769. Patent Owner may file a 15‑page response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00758 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,908,508.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested PTAB Director Review for six IPRs, including the dispute over Audio Pod IP's patent 10,805,111. The patent owner may respond within five business days, but cannot submit new evidence. The Director will determine whether to grant the review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested Director Review of six IPRs targeting its audio‑pod patent. The PTAB will decide whether a limited review is permitted, with the patent owner allowed a brief response but no new evidence.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Court decision.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple moved to terminate IPR2025-00600 after a reexamination cancelled all claims of the 10,698,989 patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the decision that had denied institution of Pantech’s patent 9,763,283. The denial leaves the institution denial standing.
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPRs challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,839,733. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple moved to withdraw its IPR against Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 10,064,055 after the related Texas lawsuit was dismissed. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential business information, limiting public access.
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01375 after reaching a settlement. The parties seek to keep the settlement confidential and end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
TikTok Inc. v.ShopSee, Inc.
This exhibit is a memorandum announcing a new PTAB policy that panels will resolve all raised grounds in final written decisions for IPRs and PGRs without oral hearings, aiming for faster, more efficient outcomes.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Exhibit 2002 contains the settlement agreement between Top Glory Trading Group, DP Dream Pairs and Cole Haan, indicating the IPR has been resolved.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs filed by Samsung, leaving the institution orders in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Court decision.
North Sails Group, LLC v.Team New Zealand Limited et al.
The PTAB denied institution of the post-grant review (PGR) for patent 12110089, finding that North Sails Group failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenged claims.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Court decision.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard's IPR challenge to Medline Industries' patent was terminated after the parties reached a settlement, with the Board granting a joint motion to dismiss before instituting the trial.
Amazon.com et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and NL Giken settled their inter partes review dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP
Court decision.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm jointly filed a request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The filing seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
The PTAB denied Amgen's request for Director Review of the USPTO's decision not to institute two IPRs against Bristol‑Myers Squibb patents, leaving the institution denials intact.
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
The PTAB notified Amgen and Bristol‑Myers Squibb that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025‑00601 and IPR2025‑00602, setting a five‑day deadline for a limited response and prohibiting new evidence.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI and Amazon filed a joint motion stating they have settled the dispute and seek a 45‑day stay of court deadlines.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR against its 7,689,001 patent should be denied, citing a pending settlement and flaws in the petition’s base challenge.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR petition is unlikely to succeed and that the parties have settled the underlying dispute. The patent owner seeks discretionary denial and plans to request termination of the IPR.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,096,055. Both parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceedings, and the petitioner withdrew its request for Director Review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00481. The company argues that the agency’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo and the new Fintiv discretionary denial framework violate due process, the APA, and statutory limits.
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.