technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 34 of 36 · 1,070 total
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor and Delta Electronics jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00705 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Intersect ENT, Inc. et al. v.New Amsterdam, LLC
Intersect ENT and New Amsterdam have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00713 concerning U.S. Patent 6,916,483. The motion seeks to end the proceeding, likely reflecting a settlement between the parties.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate their inter partes review after reaching a settlement and filing a joint dismissal in district court.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Nokia’s U.S. Patent 8,050,321. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreements as confidential business information.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Greenthread has filed a Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit challenging the PTAB’s finding that multiple claims of U.S. Patent 11,121,222 are obvious. The appeal contests the Board’s claim constructions and analysis of prior art.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, seeking business‑confidential treatment separate from the public patent file.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco and Video Solutions jointly requested confidentiality for their settlement agreement and moved to terminate IPR2024-00695 concerning patent 8,649,426.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 and jointly request that the settlement documents be kept confidential, moving to terminate the proceeding.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00643 concerning patent 8056075. The Board has not yet ruled, but the motion seeks dismissal of the proceeding.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One settled their dispute with patent owner Implicit over U.S. Patent 8,056,075 B2. The PTAB granted a motion to terminate the IPR and ordered the settlement agreements kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia filed a Director Review request asking the USPTO to vacate the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against its patent 11805267, alleging abuse of discretion and citing statutory and prior‑art grounds.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate IPR 2024-00682 after reaching a settlement and filing a joint stipulation for dismissal in the Eastern District of Texas.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
Apple filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of IPR 2025‑00172. The response argues that DH International waived any discretionary denial arguments by not filing the brief allowed under the Interim Processes memo and that the Board’s practice of permitting affidavit cures is proper.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
The PTAB denied HighLevel's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs covering patents owned by ClickFunnels. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes unchanged.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00172 concerning patent 9,022,294. The institution decision remains in effect, leaving the challenged patent intact.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
EMKinetics challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that invalidated 13 claims of U.S. Patent 11,224,742, arguing the Board relied on unsupported presumptions of public accessibility and improperly admitted new evidence as rebuttal. The Patent Owner seeks Director Review to vacate the decision.
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. filed a motion to withdraw its IPR petition against U.S. Patent 8,314,481. The petition is being withdrawn, ending the proceeding.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries and B&D Technologies settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,632,815 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries and B&D Technologies jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations during an IPR.
PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v.National Nail, Corp.
Court decision.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology jointly moved to end IPR 2024‑00963 and asked the PTAB to keep their final settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,701,321 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology entered a settlement that led to the termination of two inter partes review proceedings (IPR2024-00857 and IPR2024-00963). The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and partially protected the settlement documents as confidential.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 11,415,760 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential while moving to terminate the proceeding.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
Senko Advanced Components submits a sur‑reply defending its ownership of U.S. Patent 11,415,760 against US Conec Ltd.’s IPR petition. The Owner emphasizes that a pre‑CIP assignment transferred all rights, including continuations‑in‑part, and that the challenger failed to prove the Wong patent qualifies as prior art.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec and Senko Advanced Components entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of multiple IPR proceedings, including the patent covering 11,415,760. The Board granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement agreement.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Court decision.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Aptiv Technologies withdrew its request for Director Review in the IPR against Microchip Technology, with Microchip not opposing. The withdrawal is made without prejudice to appeal the Final Written Decision.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The PTAB Director has acknowledged a Director Review request in IPR2024-00495 and limited the petitioner’s response to a 15‑page brief filed within five business days, prohibiting new evidence or additional briefing.
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
CIMBRIA SRL and 3U Vision settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,666,947, leading to a joint motion that terminated the post‑grant review. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
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.