technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 17 of 36 · 1,070 total
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Anthony Inc.'s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00559, leaving ControlTec's patent 7,207,181 instituted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung Electronics and Headwater Research settled their disputes across several IPRs, including IPR2025-00482, and jointly moved to terminate the proceedings. The petitioner also withdrew its request for Director Review or Rehearing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00482, arguing the agency’s retroactive policy change violates due process, the APA, and statutory limits.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN settled their disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate six inter partes review proceedings before any hearing. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom firm KPN have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning patent 9,462,544. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
Court decision.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings files an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Samsung’s Director Review Request, arguing the petition raises new, unauthorized arguments and lacks merit under due‑process and APA grounds. The patent owner asserts the Acting Director correctly applied USPTO guidance and the holistic Fintiv analysis.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings opposes Samsung's Director Review Request, asserting the request raises new, unauthorized arguments and that Samsung lacks due‑process and APA grounds. The patent owner contends the Board’s actions complied with existing USPTO guidance.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s Director Review Request, asserting the request contains unauthorized new arguments and that Samsung’s due‑process and APA claims lack merit. The patent owner contends the Acting Director acted in line with USPTO guidance.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director rehearing request after the USPTO denied institution of its IPRs against Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,368,281.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,368,281. The denial leaves the original institution denials in place.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the PTAB’s institution decisions in multiple IPRs, leaving the original denials in place.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung filed a Director review request after the USPTO denied institution of its IPRs against Vasu Holdings. The email cites concurrent P‑TACTS filings and asks the Director to overturn the denial.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a Director rehearing request after the PTAB denied institution of five IPRs against Vasu Holdings’ patent 10,419,996. The petition seeks reversal of the discretionary denial under § 314(a) and notes concurrent P‑TACTS filings.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Court decision.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and BirchTech Corp. have settled their IPR dispute and jointly moved to keep the settlement agreement confidential under Board rules.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway’s energy affiliates and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,596,517. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to MidAmerican, citing settlement and lack of a merits decision.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and WEC Energy Group have settled the IPR concerning patent 10,596,517 and seek to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp continued their IPRs after MidAmerican Energy settled the dispute. The Board terminated the IPRs as to MidAmerican, treating the settlement as confidential, while leaving the remaining petitioners' cases open.
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick have settled their dispute over patent 11,910,926 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The petition cites 35 U.S.C. § 317 and prior Board decisions supporting termination at the preliminary stage.
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick, Inc. settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR before any institution, resulting in a confidential settlement and dismissal of the proceedings.
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 concerning patent 11,849,843. The parties indicate they have settled, seeking dismissal of the proceeding.
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. have jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 following a settlement of their underlying dispute. The petition argues that the Board has not yet decided any merits, making termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) appropriate.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung filed a Director rehearing request after the PTAB denied institution of five related IPRs against Vasu Holdings’ patent. The petition also notes concurrent P‑TACTS submissions.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings files an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Samsung's Director Review Request, arguing the petition raises new, unauthorized arguments and lacks due‑process and APA merit.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings, LLC filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s Director Review Request in IPR2025‑00447. The response argues Samsung introduced new, unauthorized arguments and lacks merit on due‑process and APA grounds. The Board’s institution decision is portrayed as consistent with USPTO guidance.
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung’s counsel filed a Director rehearing request after the USPTO denied institution of multiple IPRs against Vasu Holdings. The petition seeks to overturn the denial and keep the challenges active.
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
Court decision.
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.