technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 5 of 36 · 1,070 total
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
The USPTO Board granted institution for six IPR proceedings, allowing them to proceed to the merits phase. This decision is part of a broader notice covering multiple institutional decisions.
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
Court decision.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
Exhibit 2002 is a settlement agreement in IPR2025-01395 between Top Glory Trading Group Inc., DP Dream Pairs, Inc., and Cole Haan LLC concerning U.S. Patent No. 768969. The parties resolved the dispute, terminating the proceeding.
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01395, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
The patent owner has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00959, and the Board has instructed the petitioner to submit a limited response within five business days.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and patent‑assertion firm Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025‑00986 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes, ending the proceeding before it was instituted.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
The PTAB notified the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876, setting a 15‑page limit and a five‑business‑day deadline for the Patent Owner’s response, with no new evidence allowed.
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
The USPTO Director denied Google LLC's request for a director review of the institution decisions in two IPRs (patents 9,940,972 and 10,218,954) filed against Cellular South, Inc.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
Court decision.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has requested Director Review of two IPRs (2025‑01486 and 2025‑01488) against HBCU Messaging’s patent 8,918,127. The patent owner may submit a limited 15‑page response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two IPR decisions involving Netlist’s patents after the Director recused herself, leaving the Board’s decisions final.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-01493. The Board set a brief response window for the patent owner and barred new evidence. The Director will decide on the review request.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The USPTO Director denied Apple’s request for a rehearing of the institution decision in IPR2025‑01488, leaving the earlier denial of institution in place.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
Apple filed Director Review requests for two IPRs against HBCU Messaging’s patent. The PTAB has limited the Patent Owner’s response to 15 pages and barred new evidence. A decision on the review will follow.
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.’s request for Director Review of the USPTO’s decision not to institute the IPR covering HBCU Messaging’s patent 11,089,450, as well as two related IPRs. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Netlist has requested a Director Review in IPR2025-01431 and the PTAB has emailed both parties with strict response limits and a five‑day deadline.
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--
Court decision.
Nicholson Manufacturing Ltd. et al. v.BID GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The USPTO Board issued mixed institution decisions across multiple IPR and PGR proceedings. Several cases were granted for trial based on likelihood of prevailing, while others were denied due to lack of merit or discretionary concerns.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for five IPR/PGR proceedings after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Other cases were denied based on resource efficiency or lack of merit likelihood.
Atrius Development Group Corp. v.ABC IP, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01473 for Atrius Development Group Corp. against ABC IP, LLC because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01431 after reviewing the merits and finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Other proceedings were denied based on discretionary or non-discretionary factors.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01315 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institution decisions across various proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01314 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01312 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
ToughBuilt Industries, Inc. v.Meridian International Co. Ltd.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01462 after a merits review, finding the petitioner met the legal threshold. The notice also detailed multiple discretionary and non-discretionary denials across various proceedings.
ToughBuilt Industries, Inc. v.Meridian International Co. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01461 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that at least one challenged claim was unpatentable.
Apple Inc. v.Ginko LLC
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01388 after determining the petitioner lacked a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institutional reviews.
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01364 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO Board denied institution of IPR2025-01313 after a merits review, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
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.