technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 18 of 36 · 1,070 total
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
The PTAB Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00447, leaving the original institution ruling in place.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,421,188 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, and the Board granted the termination before instituting a trial.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before a trial was instituted.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,421,188. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung Electronics filed Director Review requests for three IPRs against Cerence Operating Company. The PTAB has limited the Patent Owner to a brief, evidence‑free response, and the Director will decide on the review.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,244,284 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
Samsung has submitted Director Review requests for three IPRs challenging Cerence’s patent. The PTAB has limited the patent owner’s response to a 15‑page brief with no new evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics and Dutch telecom firm KPN have reached a confidential settlement, jointly moving to terminate the pending IPR on U.S. Patent 8,881,235. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung Electronics and Dutch telecom firm KPN settled their disputes, prompting the PTAB to terminate six inter partes review proceedings before they were instituted.
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The USPTO denied Cambridge Industries' request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00433, leaving the original denial in place.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp settled their PTAB IPRs, leading to termination of the case for MidAmerican Energy while the dispute remains for the other petitioners.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Court decision.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Court decision.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01575, allowing Tesla to challenge Perceptive Automata's patent 11753046 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01218, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 10877233.
SCIENTIFIC DRILLING INTERNATIONAL, INC. v.Gunnar LLLP
The PTAB denied institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR) for patent 12110780. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were unpatentable.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
The USPTO Director denied the institution of IPR proceedings brought by Amazon against VB Assets regarding patent 11080758.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,613,060 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs involving Wilus's patent 11,159,210. The institution decisions remain in effect.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus sought leave to address recent director‑review decisions and submit new evidence in five IPRs, but the Director denied the request, citing policy against inconsistent claim constructions and statutory timing constraints.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of sixteen inter partes review proceedings, including IPR2025-00898 covering patent 10,951,271. The Board granted the motion to terminate under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung and Hermes IP Management settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,613,060 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the parties' motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
Shenzhen FBTech, Shenzhen Litime and LithiumHub Technologies filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreements as business‑confidential information, invoking statutory authority for confidentiality.
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Inter IKEA Systems and Pointwise Ventures jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00798 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding per settlement and statutory provisions.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.
Shenzhen FBTech and LiTime settled their IPR challenge to LithiumHub's patent 9,412,994, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial and keep the settlement confidential.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Court decision.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo have settled the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 11,495,898 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential, seeking termination of the proceeding.
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.