technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 33 of 36 · 1,070 total
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to vacate the institution of IPR2025‑00120, arguing that the Board misapplied the Fintiv factors and ignored the overlap with a parallel district‑court case. The petition emphasizes the imminent trial date and the limited benefit of the petitioner’s Sotera stipulation.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
Petitioner Aardevo North America filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00136 concerning patent 11140841 owned by Agventure B.V. The Board has invited the patent owner to submit a brief, five‑page response limited to the issues raised.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
The PTAB denied Aardevo North America's request for Director Review of the earlier decision denying institution of IPR2025-00136 covering patent 11,140,841. The petition was dismissed without further action.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Court decision.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR against Proxense because a related review of the same patent had already been instituted in another proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Court decision.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against ASUS. The petition contends the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, ignoring prior art and POSITA testimony.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Court decision.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
Petitioner US Conec Ltd. filed an IPR against Senko Advanced Components' patent 11061190; the patent owner submitted a preliminary response.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Court decision.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant and Vigilytics have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,665,685 B1. They jointly request the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Toyota filed a joint motion to dismiss the IPR (2024-00756) against Infogation’s patent 6,292,743.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Toyota Motor Corp and Infogation Corp settled their inter partes review dispute before any trial, leading the PTAB to dismiss the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The Board issued an order granting Cala Health and EMKinetics' joint request to keep their Confidential Settlement Agreement private under 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). The agreement will be treated as business confidential information and kept separate from the patent file.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKinetics jointly moved to dismiss IPR2024‑00743 covering claims 1‑17 of U.S. Patent 11,628,300. The parties cite a confidential settlement and the early, pre‑institution stage of the proceeding as reasons for dismissal.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The PTAB issued an order granting Cala Health and EMKinetics' joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c), separating it from the IPR file.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The USPTO denied Aylo Freesites’ request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00710, leaving the patent owner’s rights intact.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKINETICS settled their dispute over two patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review proceedings before trial.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKinetics filed a joint motion to dismiss the IPR over U.S. Patent 10,786,669, citing a confidential settlement and the early stage of the proceeding. They request the Board terminate the case before institution to preserve resources.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Toyota and Infogation settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 6,292,743 and jointly moved to dismiss the pending inter partes review.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKinetics filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business‑confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and to dismiss the pending IPR.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
The USPTO denied Disney Media's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00736 concerning patent 7,574,725. The Board found the petition did not meet the required standards for review.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against WellcomeMat, LLC's patent (8307286) concerning online video/real estate marketing. The Board found that the Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard despite prior district court litigation.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Court decision.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek and MOSAID have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,945,885 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation filed a Director Review request after the USPTO denied its institution petition in IPR2024-00715, arguing the Board should have considered the patent owner's expert testimony despite lacking documentary support.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied its institution petition for IPR2024-00706, challenging the Board’s handling of expert testimony. The email urges the Director to institute the case and defer factual findings to trial.
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.