technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 26 of 36 · 1,070 total
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
Garmin and Saris Equipment have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,434,394 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
The PTAB denied Pascal Technologies' request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01235, leaving the institution order in place.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request in IPR2024-01281. Cisco must respond within five business days, limited to 15 pages and without new evidence.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Cambridge Enterprise has requested a Director Review of IPR2024-01235. Pascal Technologies may respond within five business days, limited to five pages and without new evidence. The Board will decide whether to grant the review.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies and Cambridge Enterprise Limited, along with two universities, settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,230,656. The Board terminated the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request for IPR2024-01310. Genius Sports Ltd. must submit a concise response within five business days, and no new evidence may be introduced.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
Court decision.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving NTECH’s patent 9,923,947. The Board limited the Patent Owner’s response to five pages and a five‑day deadline, prohibiting new evidence.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
An email from the PTAB Director informs TikTok and NTECH Properties that Director Review requests for IPR2024-01341 and IPR2024-01343 have been received, setting a five‑business‑day deadline for a brief response and prohibiting new evidence.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Court decision.
Google LLC v.--
Google LLC's attempt to challenge a patent via IPR was denied by the PTAB because another, earlier petition challenging the same patent had already been instituted.
Google LLC v.--
Google LLC's attempt to challenge patent 9,679,289 B1 was denied by the PTAB because a prior inter partes review (IPR) of the same patent had already been instituted.
Google LLC v.--
The PTAB denied Google's attempt to file a second IPR against PROXENSE's patent because the Board had already instituted an earlier review.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Microsoft's request to institute Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Proxense's patent 8,886,954. The denial was based on a procedural condition that required prior non-institution in a related proceeding.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Microsoft's request to institute Inter Partes Review against Proxense's patent because a related review was already underway.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB notified the parties that the patent owner filed Director Review requests for IPR2024-01284, 01285, 01313, and 01314. Motorola Solutions, the petitioner, may file a concise response within five business days, limited to the issues raised.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB Director sent an email informing Motorola Solutions and Stellar that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2024-01284, 01285, 01313, and 01314, and that the petitioner must respond within five business days with a five‑page limit and no new evidence.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
Court decision.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco and Croga Innovations jointly moved to terminate their inter partes review after reaching a confidential settlement, and the Board granted the termination.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,785,759 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy favors termination.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings, including the IPR covering patent 10,785,759. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,104,658 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits, and the parties cite statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for ending the proceeding.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems and Croga Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,738,368. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding, and the Board granted the termination.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL GIKEN INCORPORATED
Amazon and its affiliates settled an inter partes review against NL Giken’s patent 9,319,615. The Board terminated the proceeding, treating the settlement as confidential.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and K. Mizra have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 9,160,466 following a settlement that resolves their dispute.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and Asus filed a joint request to have their IPR settlement materials treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The motion seeks to keep the settlement separate from the public file and limit access to government agencies or parties with good cause.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL GIKEN INCORPORATED
Amazon, its affiliates and Twitch filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01161 after reaching a confidential settlement with NL Giken, ending the dispute over U.S. Patent 9,319,615.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petitioned for rehearing of a USPTO Director Review decision across several IPRs. The Board denied the rehearing requests, leaving the prior institution decisions in place.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to overturn a Director’s discretionary denial that left Mullen Industries’ 19‑claim patent alive. The petition argues misapplication of Fintiv factors, failure to honor a Sotera stipulation, and retroactive rescission of guidance.
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.