technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 32 of 36 · 1,070 total
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after reaching a settlement, which the Board approved and treated the settlement as confidential business information.
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,194,039, and they have jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
The PTAB issued an order terminating the IPR against Garmin after a settlement was reached, and allowed the settlement agreement to be filed as business‑confidential information. The proceeding remains open for other parties.
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals jointly moved to terminate two inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the termination, citing good cause and public policy favoring settlement.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
The IPR was terminated after the parties settled following institution.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,679,289 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion stresses settlement, early‑stage status, and judicial economy.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on Patent 10,073,960. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential under §317(b).
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR and to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions. The parties seek Board protection of the agreement from public disclosure.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung, arguing the Board misapplied the Fintiv factors and relied on rescinded guidance. The petition seeks to deny institution and extend the filing deadline.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has requested a Director Review of the IPR decision against Yangtze Memory Technologies. The Patent Owner has five business days to file a concise response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The USPTO denied Cisco’s request for Director Review of the final written decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving patent 7,523,484. The denial leaves the patent owner’s rights intact.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Court decision.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,756,680 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,649,909, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,898,014, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
Court decision.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,294,403 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 9,342,078. They jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding without a final written decision.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,649,909. They have filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317, citing public‑policy support for settlement.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of America and SitePro settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,342,078 before trial. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board granted the termination, treating the settlement as confidential.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The IPR against SitePro’s patent 11,294,403 was terminated after the parties settled the dispute, including related district‑court litigation, before any trial was instituted.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 11,762,504, and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,488,871 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board granted the termination and confidentiality request.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro settled their PTAB dispute over Patent 11,175,680 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, which the Board granted, ending the proceeding before trial.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
Court decision.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
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.