technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 36 · 1,070 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Kannuu Pty. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00072, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Kannuu's patent 11200252.
Kia America, Inc. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the Post-Grant Review (PGR) for Kia America against Emerging Automotive, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB denied institution in certain IPR proceedings involving Toyota Motor Corporation and Emerging Automotive LLC, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00069, allowing GE Healthcare Ltd. to challenge claims in patent 11938201 held by The Johns Hopkins University.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00059 involving Toyota Motor Corporation and Emerging Automotive LLC. The Board found the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Kannuu Pty. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00071, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Kannuu's patent 11573939.
Samsara, Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR proceeding (IPR2026-00034) involving Samsara, Inc. and Motive Technologies, Inc., finding the petitioner failed to meet the standard for likelihood of prevailing.
NVIDIA Corporation v.Onesta IP, LLC
NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Onesta IP's U.S. Patent 11,841,803.
Apple Inc. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung, Google and other petitioners' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00341, leaving the original decision in place.
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
The USPTO Board granted institution for PGR2026-00003 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01310 involving Samsung and Maxell. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2026-00124, allowing Medtronic to proceed with challenging Moskowitz Family LLC's patent.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2026-00121, allowing Medtronic to challenge Moskowitz Family LLC's patent.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2026-00112 after reviewing the merits, finding that Meta Platforms failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing against SitNet's patent.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Amazon's IPR2026-00088 while denying it for related PGR and IPR proceedings.
Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v.Ziklag IP LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Amazon Web Services' IPR against Ziklag IP regarding patent 6182128, allowing the review to proceed.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01577 involving Tesla and Perceptive Automata LLC. The Board found that the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,250,758. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR proceeding, citing the settlement and judicial economy.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
Court decision.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
The USPTO Board issued mixed institution decisions across multiple IPR and PGR proceedings, granting trials in some cases while denying them in others based on likelihood of prevailing.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01245, allowing the trial to proceed on merits.
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied institution for the IPR challenge against CommScope's patent 10996417.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
Google LLC has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR against Cellular South’s 9,940,972 patent. The petition argues that the Board’s “settled expectations” rule exceeds statutory authority and violates the APA, AIA, and due process.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
An email notifies parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876. It outlines a 15‑page response limit, a five‑business‑day deadline, and bars new evidence. The patent owner must respond within the stipulated timeframe.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
The USPTO denied Cisco’s request for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial and institution denial in two IPRs involving QPRIVACY USA’s patent 11,106,824. The order upholds the earlier decisions.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
Cisco seeks rehearing of the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR against QPRIVACY’s privacy‑technology patent, arguing the Director ignored a Sotera stipulation that eliminates duplicate litigation.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
The USPTO Director denied Cisco’s petition for rehearing of the decision that refused to institute IPR2025‑00836 against QPRIVACY USA LLC’s patent 11,816,249. The denial leaves the patent unchallenged.
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
Amphenol and Credo have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,032,111 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential. The motion cites statutory authority to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Director Review request seeking reversal of the USPTO’s discretionary denial to institute six IPRs against iCashe’s patent 9,208,423.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
Samsung filed a petition asking the USPTO Director to rehear the denial of institution for several IPRs targeting iCashe’s patent. The request challenges the Director’s discretionary denial under § 314(a).
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.