technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
666 decisions indexed
Page 19 of 23 · 666 total
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Court decision.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Certificate of Service for the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00863 concerning patent 11,663,031.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises filed a joint motion in a PGR to terminate the proceeding and keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises entered a settlement and jointly moved to terminate their post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 11,732,496. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory authority.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises entered a settlement that resolved all pending PTAB post‑grant review matters for patent 11,732,496. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement documents as confidential business information.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the PGR, and the Board granted the motion, sealing the settlement agreement.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement confidential and withdraw the PGR petition, effectively ending the proceeding.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled all disputes over four patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes reviews without a final written decision.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00934 concerning patent 7,496,342 owned by ParkerVision.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
An email notifies the parties that ParkerVision’s Director Review request in IPR2024‑00934 has been received, allowing Texas Instruments a 15‑page response.
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
The PTAB denied Duration Media's request for Director Review of the decision that had denied institution of IPR2024‑00937 concerning patent 11,741,482. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,389,038 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
Duration Media filed a Director review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Rich Media Club's patent 11,741,482. The email attaches the service copy of the request and seeks the Director’s consideration.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences' request to reconsider the institution decision in IPR2024‑01133, finding no extraordinary circumstances despite recent guidance changes. The Board applied the Chief Judge’s and Director’s memoranda and upheld the original institution.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Patent owners S.M.R Innovations and Y.M.R Tech have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute IPR2024‑01048 against Apple Inc. The request, submitted by lead counsel Cortney Alexander of Kent & Risley, seeks reconsideration of the institution.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01048 concerning patent 10,547,648. The denial leaves the institution decision in place.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. and M.E.A.C. Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,858,534, prompting Solventum’s unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024‑01002. The motion cites the settlement, lack of opposition, and judicial economy as reasons to end the proceeding before institution.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation and M.E.A.C. Engineering reached a settlement that led to the termination of IPR2024-01001 before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. filed an unopposed motion to keep its settlement with M.E.A.C. Engineering confidential under federal rules, also seeking termination of the IPR.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google and Dialect have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00750 after reaching a settlement, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google and Dialect reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-00750 after the trial had been instituted. The settlement agreement will be kept confidential per Board order.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Court decision.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
iQar Inc. has filed a Director Review Request challenging the PTAB’s institution of its U.S. Patent 10,850,616, asserting misapplication of § 325(d) and lack of deference to the examiner’s § 112 analysis. The petition seeks to overturn the institution and set proper precedent for future panels.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,224,563 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, citing settlement and lack of merit decision.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The USPTO denied Ericsson and Nokia's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2024-00314, leaving the original denial of institution intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Advanced Coding Technologies settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treat the settlement as confidential. No merits were decided.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The USPTO Director denied the petitions for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in PGR2024-00026, which challenges a construction‑equipment patent owned by Guntert & Zimmerman. The petitioner, GOMACO, had sought review but the request was rejected.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
In PGR2024-00026, the patent owner seeks Director Review of the proceeding. The petitioner has a brief window to respond without new evidence.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The patent owner has asked the PTAB Director to review the IPR, and the petitioner must respond within five business days with a limited brief. No new evidence is allowed.
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.