technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 31 of 36 · 1,070 total
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01048 concerning patent 10,547,648. The denial leaves the institution decision in place.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. filed an unopposed motion to keep its settlement with M.E.A.C. Engineering confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 8,858,534.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. and M.E.A.C. Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,858,534, prompting Solventum’s unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024‑01002. The motion cites the settlement, lack of opposition, and judicial economy as reasons to end the proceeding before institution.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation and M.E.A.C. Engineering reached a settlement that led to the termination of IPR2024-01001 before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. filed an unopposed motion to keep its settlement with M.E.A.C. Engineering confidential under federal rules, also seeking termination of the IPR.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. filed an IPR against M.E.A.C. Engineering’s patent 8,858,534. The parties settled before the Board could institute a trial, leading to a termination order.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. and M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd. have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,806,554. An unopposed motion to terminate the proceeding has been filed, citing the settlement and judicial economy.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The USPTO denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00751, leaving the institution of the IPR against Dialect’s patent in place.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google and Dialect have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00750 after reaching a settlement, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00748 concerning Patent 8,015,006. The original institution ruling remains unchanged.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google and Dialect reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-00750 after the trial had been instituted. The settlement agreement will be kept confidential per Board order.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Court decision.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The USPTO denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00747 concerning Patent 7,502,738 owned by Dialect LLC.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Court decision.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla sought a Director Review of the USPTO's institution of iQar's patent 10,850,616. The Board denied the request, leaving the institution in place.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
iQar Inc. has filed a Director Review Request challenging the PTAB’s institution of its U.S. Patent 10,850,616, asserting misapplication of § 325(d) and lack of deference to the examiner’s § 112 analysis. The petition seeks to overturn the institution and set proper precedent for future panels.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The Director vacated institution decisions in the TikTok vs. Cellspin IPRs, denying petitions because TikTok failed to prove it was not controlled by a foreign government at the time of filing.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,224,563 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, citing settlement and lack of merit decision.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv jointly request that their settlement agreement be treated as Confidential Business Information in the IPR.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv have jointly moved to terminate their IPR dispute over patent 11,253,719.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The USPTO denied Ericsson and Nokia's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2024-00314, leaving the original denial of institution intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Advanced Coding Technologies settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treat the settlement as confidential. No merits were decided.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The USPTO Director denied the petitions for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in PGR2024-00026, which challenges a construction‑equipment patent owned by Guntert & Zimmerman. The petitioner, GOMACO, had sought review but the request was rejected.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
In PGR2024-00026, the patent owner seeks Director Review of the proceeding. The petitioner has a brief window to respond without new evidence.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The USPTO denied GOMACO's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00835, leaving the prior Board decision in place.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The patent owner has asked the PTAB Director to review the IPR, and the petitioner must respond within five business days with a limited brief. No new evidence is allowed.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,478,030 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board is asked to end the proceeding.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs involving Maxell patents, including patent 8,982,086. The denial leaves the PTAB's original rulings unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00828 was denied by the USPTO, leaving the original institution ruling in place.
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.