technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 20 of 36 · 1,070 total
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPR against Nutanix, arguing the Director misapplied assignor estoppel under 35 U.S.C. §314(a). The brief cites Federal Circuit precedent that assignor estoppel cannot block IPRs.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. filed a fee transmittal to request Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00322 concerning Nutanix’s patent 11,010,336. The filing includes payment of $452 and asserts small and micro entity status.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The PTAB denied Tessell’s request for Director Review of the earlier decision that denied institution of the IPR against Nutanix’s patent. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and NL Giken settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,094,236 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Court decision.
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
ASUS filed a motion to withdraw its IPR petition against VideoLabs' patent after related Roku IPRs were settled, rendering its joinder motions moot. The Board will decide on the withdrawal request.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00250 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent holder NL Giken over U.S. Patent 8,094,236. The motion argues that termination is appropriate given the early stage of the proceeding and public policy favoring settlement.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
The IPRs challenging Kyocera’s patents were terminated after the parties reached a settlement, with the agreement kept confidential.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. and Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc. entered into a settlement agreement covering U.S. Patent No. 11,034,007 and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00261. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. submitted an email to the PTAB Director requesting a rehearing after the Director Review denied institution of its IPR against Nutanix, Inc.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings and Kyocera reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, requesting termination of the IPR concerning Patent 11,845,167.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The PTAB notified the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-00298. The petitioner is limited to a five‑page response filed within five business days, and no new evidence may be introduced.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00262 concerning U.S. Patent 10,478,954, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris and Inpria have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,673,903 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board had previously instituted the proceeding but no merits were decided.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola Mobility settled their IPR challenge to Headwater Research’s patent 10,749,700, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Court decision.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola jointly moved with Headwater Research to terminate IPR 2024‑01181 after settling the dispute over Patent 10,749,700, including related district‑court litigation.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Court decision.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR disputes, leading to withdrawal of Director Review requests for three proceedings.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences LLC’s request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01132. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and applied the new Director’s Memorandum, leaving the institution in place.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion, citing good cause and confidentiality considerations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,710,473 and jointly request the Board keep the settlement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,710,473 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya jointly moved to end multiple IPRs covering patent 11,710,473. The PTAB granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology has filed a Director Review request in IPR2024‑00896. Samsung has five business days to submit a limited response, with no new evidence allowed.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination saves resources and promotes settlement policy.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology and Omachron reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-00690 concerning patent 10,117,550 B1. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The USPTO denied ADC Solutions Auto LLC's petitions for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs involving The Noco Company's patents, leaving the original decisions intact.
Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.
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.