technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
167 decisions indexed
Page 6 of 6 · 167 total
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01252, allowing the challenger to proceed with the review.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01253 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against patent 12268475 involving Samsung Electronics and Omni Medsci.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01264, allowing the challenged claims to proceed to trial based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01265, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This notice also details multiple other institutional decisions across various proceedings.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01267 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision confirms the proceeding will move forward to merits review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01309 and related cases after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This moves the proceedings forward to trial phase.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01310 involving Samsung and Maxell. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
The Board granted institution for IPR2025-01311, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review after determining the petitioner met the required likelihood of success standard.
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.
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.
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 IPR2025-01315 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.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge (IPR2025-01326) brought by Regions Bank against United Services Automobile Association's patent 12159310.
Jesco Lighting Group, LLC v.AGS Lighting Management, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01328 after finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The proceeding is currently stayed pending review in another case.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01336 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner failed to meet the standard of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
This petition challenges patent validity under 35 U.S.C. § 103, asserting that the claimed invention is obvious in light of prior art references Rao and Fadell. The challenge covers a broad scope of claims ranging from Claim 1 to Claim 159.
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.