technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 23 of 36 · 1,070 total
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Google and Samsung have filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for an IPR against Cerence’s ‘750 patent. The petition argues the Board acted ultra vires by retroactively applying new guidance and mis‑weighing the Fintiv factors, especially the Sotera stipulation. The request seeks reversal and institution of the review.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola Mobility, Google, and Multifold International have jointly filed a request to keep their settlement covenants confidential, invoking 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The request seeks to separate the agreements from the public patent file and limit disclosure to government agencies or parties with good cause.
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Multifold International has submitted a Director Review request in IPR2025-00058 against Google. The petitioner may file a concise, five‑page response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s denial of institution for IPR2024-01464 covering U.S. Patent 11,393,461. They argue the Board acted ultra vires and misapplied Fintiv factors, especially the Sotera stipulation and trial‑date uncertainty. The request seeks reversal and institution of the IPR.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Proxense's patent 8,886,954, finding that the petition did not warrant institution as a second challenge.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Petition for post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 12152262 filed by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC against Halozyme, Inc.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Merck’s request for review of the Board’s institution decisions on several PGRs, including Halozyme’s patent 12,152,262. The denial leaves the Board’s original institution findings intact.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,708,618 before the trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint termination motion and treated the settlement documents as confidential.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB notified QIAGEN that Tecan’s Director Review request for IPR2025-00029 is pending. QIAGEN has five days to submit a concise, five‑page response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Court decision.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra Inc.
Silicon Motion and K.Mizra jointly moved to dismiss their IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Court decision.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00847, leaving the institution of Nokia's patent 7,532,808 in place.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Court decision.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB denied Director Review requests for three IPRs, including Western Digital’s challenge to patent 10,680,167 owned by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1. The institution decisions remain in effect.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB denied Western Digital's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving patent 11,968,909. The institution rulings therefore remain in place.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request for two IPRs involving Western Digital and Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1. The petitioner must respond within five business days with a brief limited to the raised issues and cannot submit new evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01431 after reaching a settlement, also requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung Electronics and SiOnyx reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-01431 concerning patent 11,069,737 B2. The settlement agreement is kept confidential per statutory requirements.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's petitions for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs, leaving the institution rulings in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving Samsung. The Board limited Samsung's response to five pages and five business days, prohibiting new evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic requested Director Review of IPR2024-01404 (and IPR2024-01402). Samsung has five business days to file a concise response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana and Veeva Systems settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-01443 and IPR2024-01444 before institution. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request in IPR2024-01405, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages, no new evidence, and a five‑business‑day deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic seeks Director Review of IPR2024‑01403, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Court decision.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America has been notified that Cyandia’s request for Director Review in IPR2024‑01433 is pending, with a tight five‑day response window and no new evidence 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.