technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 29 of 36 · 1,070 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya settled their IPR over patent 11,750,965 and jointly moved to have the settlement kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,667,304 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and cites the lack of a final written decision.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
The PTAB denied Intel’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute the IPR against Ericsson’s U.S. Patent 10,142,659.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Court decision.
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Minka Lighting and Wangs Alliance have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01027 concerning patent 11028854.
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Minka Lighting, LLC and Wangs Alliance Corporation have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01027 concerning patent 11028854. The motion seeks to end the inter partes review.
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Court decision.
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Court decision.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
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 9,179,359 patent, arguing that the agency’s retroactive policy change and the new “Fintiv” framework violate due process and statutory limits.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The patent owner seeks Director Review in IPR2024-01406; the Board limited the petitioner’s response to five pages and barred new evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Court decision.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 9,070,133 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
ArcelorMittal and POSCO are engaged in Director Review proceedings for two IPRs. The Board has limited the petitioner’s response to five pages and barred new evidence. A deadline of five business days has been set for filing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB sent an email confirming receipt of the patent owner's Director Review request and imposed a five‑page limit on the response, barred new evidence, and required filing within five business days. No additional briefing is allowed at this stage.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Intelligent Clearing Network settled their dispute over patents 9,070,133 and 9,098,855, leading the PTAB to terminate both inter partes reviews. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield Inc. filed a motion to terminate the IPR against BitSight Technologies' patent 10805331.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
The PTAB terminated IPR2024-01324 (patent 9,098,855) after Quotient Technology and Intelligent Clearing Network reached a settlement, filing a joint motion to end the review.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions jointly request that their settlement agreement be treated as confidential business information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, asking the PTAB to restrict public access.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied the request to institute Inter Partes Review (IPR) regarding patent 9179359 between Samsung and Headwater Research.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID have jointly moved to terminate four pending IPRs, including the one covering U.S. Patent 8,854,077, after reaching a settlement agreement and filing a dismissal in district court.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID jointly moved to terminate four inter partes review proceedings after settling their dispute through a license agreement and a district‑court dismissal.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components, Inc. settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate multiple IPR proceedings, including the one covering patent 11,307,369 B2. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00987 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,905,742. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly filed a motion to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) in IPR2024-00987.
TransCore, LP et al. v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00982 before the Board issued an institution decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
Samsung and Redstone Logics settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,253,925. The parties jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR and requested the settlement be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
Samsung Electronics and Redstone Logics settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,253,925 before a trial was instituted. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly filed a motion to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request cites statutory and regulatory authority and argues the agreement contains confidential dispute‑resolution terms.
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.