technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 19 of 36 · 1,070 total
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,339,493 and jointly request the Board to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,339,493 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPR before the Board could institute a trial, and the settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,199,072 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations have settled their IPR over patent 10,601,780 and jointly filed a request to keep the settlement agreement confidential. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,601,780 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00394 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,199,072. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination serves public‑policy interests.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information, seeking to terminate IPR2025-00393.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of institution in IPR2025-00368, finding that overlapping district‑court litigation and weak petition merits justified the denial. Google’s request for rehearing was rejected.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information, seeking to terminate IPR2025-00394 concerning patent 10,199,072.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. This decision affirms the prior denial of institution, meaning trial will not proceed on these patents.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The Board acknowledged receipt of Director Review requests for several IPRs, including IPR2025‑00378, and instructed the patent owner to file a limited response within five business days. No new evidence may be submitted.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
An email from the PTAB Director informs the parties that a Director Review request has been filed for IPR2025-00363 and related cases, outlining a five‑page, five‑day response window and prohibiting new evidence.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Court decision.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The PTAB notified iRhythm and Welch Allyn that director review requests have been filed for several IPRs, giving the patent owner a five‑day window to submit a limited response without new evidence.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
An email from the PTAB Director informs Welch Allyn that iRhythm’s Director Review requests for multiple IPRs have been received, outlining a five‑business‑day deadline for a concise response and prohibiting new evidence.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB Director has received review requests for IPR2025-00349, -00350, and -00351. The petitioner must respond within five days, limited to five pages, with no new evidence.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR2025-00350 on June 13, 2025. A director‑review request filed by the patent owner on July 13 was deemed untimely and will not be considered.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB notified parties that Director Review requests for three IPRs have been received. The petitioner has five business days to submit a concise response limited to the raised issues, with no new evidence allowed.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB issued an institution decision for IPR2025-00349 on June 13, 2025. A later director‑review request by the patent owner was filed after the 14‑day deadline and was deemed untimely, so the Board will not consider it.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
An email from the PTAB Director informs parties of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00349, -00350, and -00351, outlining a five‑page, five‑day response limit and prohibiting new evidence.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,982,110, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Microsoft’s challenge to all 18 claims of EyesMatch’s ’109 patent and granted Microsoft’s motion to join the earlier IPR2024‑00856, consolidating the proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,982,110 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch jointly request that their settlement agreement be kept confidential under business‑confidential rules, invoking 35 U.S.C. §327 and related regulations.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Court decision.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of three IPRs after the patent owner claimed the petitioners breached a Sotera stipulation by litigating overlapping invalidity arguments in district court. The proceedings are stayed pending a decision on a motion to vacate the institution.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Nutanix filed a response defending the PTAB Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Tessell. The owner contends the Director properly exercised discretion, that assignor estoppel does not apply, and that no right to institution exists.
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.