technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 4 of 36 · 1,070 total
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
Samsung and Sinotechnix settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,412,913 before the trial was instituted. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research filed a response to Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution. The patent owner argues the Vidal Memo recission was proper, the change‑in‑position doctrine does not apply, and discretionary denial is statutorily authorized.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research files a response to Samsung’s request for Director Review, defending the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution and arguing the recission of the Vidal Memo was proper and lawful.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed a Petition for Director Review contesting the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00483, arguing that the agency’s retroactive policy change violated due process, the APA, and statutory deadlines.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00457; Cerence may respond within five business days.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
The USPTO Director denied Murata's request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00383, leaving the Georgia Tech patent intact.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for a review of the decision to deny institution of two IPRs against SoundClear Technologies’ patent 9,031,259. The order leaves the institution denial in place.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google seeks Director Review of its IPR challenges to SoundClear’s patent, prompting a brief response window for the patent owner.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global and HydraFacial filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00445 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,550,052. The Board has not issued a final decision, and the parties request dismissal of the proceeding.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,736,729, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPR before it was instituted.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement in IPR2025-00444 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement be treated as business confidential information under statutory authority.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01598, allowing Medtronic to challenge Moskowitz Family LLC's patent 9005293 at the merits stage.
Bonerge Lifescience (Hunan) Co., Ltd. v.Nanjing Nutrabuilding Bio-Tech Co., Ltd.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01593, allowing the challenger to proceed to a merits review after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01567 after finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The notice also detailed multiple denials across various proceedings.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Institution for Inter Partes Review (IPR) was granted in IPR2025-01566 after the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Shuttleslide, LLC v.Sea Swivel Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for PGR2025-00089 because the petitioner failed to meet the likelihood of success standard required under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for several IPR proceedings after petitioners demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their challenges against the patent. This moves these cases forward to the merits phase.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec settled their IPR dispute. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,852,789 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR proceeding. The settlement agreement will be filed confidentially.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Court decision.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Court decision.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Court decision.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted institution for several Inter Partes Review proceedings after petitioners demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their challenges. Other cases were denied based on discretionary or merits reviews.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01444, allowing Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. to challenge the patent held by Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al., based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01541 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision moves the case forward to merits review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01540 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v.Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR2025-00084) because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that any challenged patent claims were unpatentable.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01546 because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims. This decision is based on merits review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Luxottica of America Inc. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01512, allowing Luxottica to challenge E-Vision's patent 11971612 on the merits.
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.