technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 30 of 36 · 1,070 total
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑00972 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,640,733. The Board was asked to end the proceeding per 35 U.S.C. §317.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR after reaching a settlement with EyesMatch. The Board granted the motion and sealed the settlement agreement, ending Samsung's participation in the proceeding.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Court decision.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, and Microsoft settled their IPR challenge to EyesMatch’s ’109 patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The USPTO denied director review petitions for two IPRs involving WIZ, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd., leaving the final written decisions unchanged.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Certificate of service for the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00865 concerning patent 11,693,685.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Certificate of service for the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00864 concerning patent 11,663,032.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Certificate of Service for the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00863 concerning patent 11,663,031.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises filed a joint motion in a PGR to terminate the proceeding and keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises entered a settlement and jointly moved to terminate their post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 11,732,496. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory authority.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises entered a settlement that resolved all pending PTAB post‑grant review matters for patent 11,732,496. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement documents as confidential business information.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the PGR, and the Board granted the motion, sealing the settlement agreement.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement confidential and withdraw the PGR petition, effectively ending the proceeding.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled all disputes over four patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes reviews without a final written decision.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00934 concerning patent 7,496,342 owned by ParkerVision.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
An email notifies the parties that ParkerVision’s Director Review request in IPR2024‑00934 has been received, allowing Texas Instruments a 15‑page response.
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
The PTAB denied Duration Media's request for Director Review of the decision that had denied institution of IPR2024‑00937 concerning patent 11,741,482. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,389,038 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
Duration Media filed a Director review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Rich Media Club's patent 11,741,482. The email attaches the service copy of the request and seeks the Director’s consideration.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Court decision.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Court decision.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied fuboTV’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00902 and related IPRs, leaving the original decisions intact.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. 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. 7,280,599 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia filed a joint motion to terminate four IPRs after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR disputes, leading the Board to grant withdrawal of pending Director Review requests for the three IPRs.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia filed a joint request to treat their settlement documents as confidential and to terminate the IPR over patent 8,036,273.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences' request to reconsider the institution decision in IPR2024‑01133, finding no extraordinary circumstances despite recent guidance changes. The Board applied the Chief Judge’s and Director’s memoranda and upheld the original institution.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Patent owners S.M.R Innovations and Y.M.R Tech have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute IPR2024‑01048 against Apple Inc. The request, submitted by lead counsel Cortney Alexander of Kent & Risley, seeks reconsideration of the institution.
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.