technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 16 of 36 · 1,070 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
Court decision.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Doors and Energex Enterprises entered into a settlement agreement that includes a $300,000 payment and mutual releases of all claims. The underlying civil action was dismissed with prejudice, and the parties agreed to keep the settlement terms confidential.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Inc. submits an authorized response defending the PTAB Acting Director’s denial of institution for ControlTec’s patent. The brief argues the Director acted within statutory discretion and correctly identified a material error involving prior art Carter.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Court decision.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
An email notifying the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-00636, outlining a 15‑page, five‑day response limit and prohibiting new evidence.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
The PTAB denied NVIDIA’s request for rehearing of its challenge to Neural AI’s patent, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution refusal.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
KAIFI LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. jointly filed a motion to stay all court deadlines after reaching a settlement in principle. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and submit dismissal papers.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung Electronics and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,451,339, jointly moving to terminate IPR 2025‑00628.
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
Tire Stickers LLC authorizes payment of Director Review fees for IPR2025-00631 after the filing deadline precludes use of the standard P-TACTS system.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.OS - NEW HORIZON PERSONAL COMPUTING SOLUTIONS LTD.
An email notifies the parties that a Director Review request has been received in IPR2025-00613 and outlines the limited response requirements for the patent owner.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Keyless Licensing defends the PTAB’s denial of institution for Samsung’s IPR, arguing the Board correctly applied Fintiv factors and discretionary denial authority. The response rejects Samsung’s due‑process and procedural challenges.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute several IPRs against Keyless Licensing’s patent. The order applies to four related IPRs and leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the USPTO’s discretionary denial of institution for patent 11,503,144. The petition argues the denial relied on mistaken facts, misapplied Fintiv factors, and violated procedural due‑process rules.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
Keyless Licensing defends the PTAB’s denial of institution for Samsung’s IPR, emphasizing proper application of Fintiv factors and the lack of a statutory right to a review. The board’s discretionary denial stands, and the Director Review request is urged to be denied.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs involving Keyless Licensing’s patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,976,922. The Board affirmed the earlier denial of institution.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung and Sinotechnix settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,951,626. The Board terminated the proceeding before trial was instituted and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01574 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. This decision allows the case to proceed to merits review.
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Hisense and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review as to Hisense under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The motion argues that the Board has not yet decided the merits and that termination serves public‑policy goals.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request to institute inter partes review against Secure Communication Technologies, LLC regarding patent 11687971.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request to institute an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies, LLC regarding patent 11443344.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR challenge brought by Google LLC against Secure Communication Technologies' patent 11334918.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.L'AIR LIQUIDE, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME POUR L'ETUDE ET L'EXPLOITATION DES PROCÉDÉS GEORGES CLAUDE
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01173, allowing the challenger to proceed to trial. However, all proceedings are currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of its IPR challenge against Telcom Ventures, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution decision.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a confidential settlement that led to the joint termination of sixteen inter partes review proceedings covering Apex Beam’s patents. The Board granted the joint motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00895 covering U.S. Patent 10,568,113. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement documents confidential.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,178,104 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,178,104. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petition before a trial was instituted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung and Anonymous Media Research Holdings jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00558 before any institution decision, and the Board granted the termination to conserve resources.
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
Zepp Health and the University of Connecticut settled their IPR dispute over Patent 10,278,647 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, ending the proceeding before trial.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed Director Review requests for four IPRs against VirtaMove’s patent, and the patent owner may submit a brief, evidence‑free response.
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.