technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 22 of 36 · 1,070 total
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR, accompanied by a confidential settlement agreement. The PTAB granted the termination and ordered the settlement to be kept confidential.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle and Neapco have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,434,958 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under settlement provisions of the patent law.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB denied ResMed’s request to waive the deadline for a Director Review in IPR2025-00157, finding the request untimely under the regulations.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Court decision.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and keep it separate from the patent file.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime reached a settlement that resolves all disputes, prompting a joint motion to terminate the IPR on patent 9,887,838. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties seek termination.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Court decision.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
Court decision.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Court decision.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,972,654 B2 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement documents as confidential.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
DH International Ltd. filed a Director Review request in IPR2024-01322 against Google LLC. The petitioner has five business days to file a concise response, and no new evidence is allowed.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01322, leaving the institution of patent 9,022,294 B2 in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken over U.S. Patent 9,948,968. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, treating the settlement as confidential. The proceeding is now closed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2024-01345 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent holder NL Giken. The motion cites public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and requests Board approval to end the proceeding.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The patent owner DH International Ltd. has requested Director Review in IPR2024-01322 concerning Google LLC's challenge to U.S. Patent No. 9,022,294. The Board has limited the petitioner's response to a 15‑page brief addressing only the issues raised, with no new evidence permitted.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against DH International’s patent, rejecting claims of abuse of discretion and improper pre‑institution briefing.
Sterlite Technologies Inc. v.AFL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Court decision.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Court decision.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,571,833 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola settled their IPR against Multifold’s patent 9,058,153, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola Mobility, Google and Multifold International have resolved their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,058,153 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The parties submitted covenants not to sue and seek early termination for judicial economy.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,996,693. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and partially treated the settlement documents as confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s patent 8,996,693 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and related regulations.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after it had been instituted, and the Board granted termination while keeping the settlement documents confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent 9,571,833 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,996,693 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00061 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,792,007, citing covenants not to sue and early‑stage proceedings.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
An exhibit email shows that Google, the petitioner, does not oppose Multifold International’s request to replace a previously filed Request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision, asking the Board to accept a corrected filing without additional fees.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
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.