technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 24 of 36 · 1,070 total
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, keeping the institution rulings intact.
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
Court decision.
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 9,390,137 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
Home Depot and Security Technology reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01420 covering patent 11,562,402. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under settlement provisions.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
The PTAB denied Home Depot's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs covering a security‑system patent, leaving the institution in place.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01391 concerning U.S. Patent 9,586,659 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) before any final decision.
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
Court decision.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc.
The PTAB denied Home Depot's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs, leaving the institution of RavenWhite Security's patents intact.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential and kept separate from the patent record.
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
ETN Capital and FBA Operating Co. filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate it from the IPR record.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco has requested Director Review of four IPRs involving Yealink's challenge to patent 10762002. Yealink may file a limited 15‑page response without new evidence, and the Director will decide on the review.
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
ETN Capital and FBA Operating Co. settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,890,925 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board granted the termination, citing its policy of encouraging settlement.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco N.V. has requested Director Review of four IPRs involving Yealink’s challenge to U.S. Patent 11,422,951. The petitioner is limited to a 15‑page response filed within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco has requested Director Review of four IPRs challenging its patent, and the Board has set a tight deadline for Yealink to respond without new evidence.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco has requested Director Review of four IPRs against Yealink. The petitioner must file a concise response within five business days, without new evidence.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Court decision.
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
The IPR concerning patent 10,890,925 was terminated after the parties reached a settlement. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to be treated as confidential business information.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Palo Alto Networks and Croga Innovations filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality protections and seeking to separate the document from the IPR record.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,701 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and partially approved confidentiality for the settlement documents.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 6,856,701 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Western Digital Technologies against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple’s petition to review Proxsense’s U.S. Patent 8,646,042 was instituted, and the Board approved Apple’s motion to join the parallel Google IPR. The decision rests on multiple prior‑art combinations showing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
Court decision.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
The PTAB Director acknowledged receipt of r-pac International Corp’s request for Director Review in IPR2024-01416 concerning Adasa Inc’s patent 9,798,967. The patent owner may file a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Court decision.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed a rehearing request challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR on the grounds that the agency’s retroactive policy change violated due process, the APA, and statutory limits. The petition seeks reinstatement of the Board’s original institution decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research files a response to Samsung’s request for rehearing, defending the PTAB’s denial of institution and the recission of the Vidal Memo. The brief argues that discretionary denial is statutory and that Samsung should have foreseen the rescission.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
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.