technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
666 decisions indexed
Page 16 of 23 · 666 total
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in their Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research jointly filed a motion to treat their settlement agreement as confidential and terminate the IPR proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
Apple and NL Giken settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,948,968 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential and the proceeding was terminated.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research have entered a settlement covering U.S. Patent 8,588,110. The parties jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record.
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
Apple and NL Giken filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑01277 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences' request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01315. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and noted that the deadline for Director Review had passed. The institution of the IPR therefore remains in effect.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Anonymous Media Research Holdings settled their IPR before institution, dismissing the petition and the patent with prejudice.
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
Garmin and Saris Equipment jointly moved to end the IPR over patent 10,434,394 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, terminating the proceeding and sealing the settlement agreement.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies and Cambridge Enterprise Limited jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01235 after reaching a settlement agreement. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution, arguing the Board erred on the printed‑publication requirement and relied on inadmissible hearsay. The Patent Owner contends the petitioner failed to provide evidence that cited references qualify as printed publications and refused to make a key expert available for deposition.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
The PTAB denied Pascal Technologies' request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01235, leaving the institution order in place.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request in IPR2024-01281. Cisco must respond within five business days, limited to 15 pages and without new evidence.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Cambridge Enterprise has requested a Director Review of IPR2024-01235. Pascal Technologies may respond within five business days, limited to five pages and without new evidence. The Board will decide whether to grant the review.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies and Cambridge Enterprise Limited, along with two universities, settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,230,656. The Board terminated the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request for IPR2024-01310. Genius Sports Ltd. must submit a concise response within five business days, and no new evidence may be introduced.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
An email from the PTAB Director informs TikTok and NTECH Properties that Director Review requests for IPR2024-01341 and IPR2024-01343 have been received, setting a five‑business‑day deadline for a brief response and prohibiting new evidence.
Google LLC v.--
Google LLC's attempt to challenge patent 9,679,289 B1 was denied by the PTAB because a prior inter partes review (IPR) of the same patent had already been instituted.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Microsoft's request to institute Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Proxense's patent 8,886,954. The denial was based on a procedural condition that required prior non-institution in a related proceeding.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB Director sent an email informing Motorola Solutions and Stellar that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2024-01284, 01285, 01313, and 01314, and that the petitioner must respond within five business days with a five‑page limit and no new evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings, including the IPR covering patent 10,785,759. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,104,658 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits, and the parties cite statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for ending the proceeding.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems and Croga Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,738,368. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding, and the Board granted the termination.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and Asus filed a joint request to have their IPR settlement materials treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The motion seeks to keep the settlement separate from the public file and limit access to government agencies or parties with good cause.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL GIKEN INCORPORATED
Amazon, its affiliates and Twitch filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01161 after reaching a confidential settlement with NL Giken, ending the dispute over U.S. Patent 9,319,615.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petitioned for rehearing of a USPTO Director Review decision across several IPRs. The Board denied the rehearing requests, leaving the prior institution decisions in place.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to overturn a Director’s discretionary denial that left Mullen Industries’ 19‑claim patent alive. The petition argues misapplication of Fintiv factors, failure to honor a Sotera stipulation, and retroactive rescission of guidance.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ patent was denied. The Patent Owner’s response emphasized the Director’s discretionary authority, the parallel district‑court trial, and weak petition merits.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB sent an email notifying Samsung and Netlist of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00001 and IPR2025-00002, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages and prohibiting new evidence. The director will decide whether to grant the review.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC and Olympus Corporation have reached a settlement-in-principle in a Texas district court case, planning to file a stipulation of dismissal and requesting a 45‑day stay of deadlines.
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.