technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 7 of 36 · 1,070 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01187, citing a settlement agreement and requesting the agreement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP have reached a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,057,896. The parties jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, and the Board is asked to grant the termination.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01187 concerning U.S. Patent 11,057,896. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP entered a settlement, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR challenging patent 11,641,661. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01190 and keep their settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR case involving Samsung Electronics against Hannibal IP LLC regarding patent 11641661. The petitioner successfully met the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01187, allowing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. to proceed against Hannibal IP LLC's patent 11057896.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
The USPTO Board denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition. The denial was based on a review of the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Court decision.
Apple Inc v.1LSS Inc.
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01180, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
Fresh Products sent a formal notice terminating its manufacturing agreement with Sanastar’s WizKid Products, citing the contract’s 90‑day termination clause. The exhibit was filed in IPR2025‑01339 as supporting evidence.
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01185 after a merits review, finding the petitioner could not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institutional decisions.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect settled the IPR concerning patent 7,634,409 before the Board could institute a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted and the settlement agreement was kept confidential.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPRs have unusually high numbers of prior‑art citations and often rely on new references introduced during the post‑grant proceeding. Expert testimony and novel evidence play a key role in the Board’s unpatentability findings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
The USPTO denied Microsoft’s petition to institute an Inter Partes Review of Dialect’s patents, citing the age of the patents, subsidiary ownership issues, and a parallel district‑court case.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect settled their IPR dispute over Patent 7,917,367 before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft’s petition for an inter partes review of several older patents was denied on discretionary grounds. The Board cited the subsidiary’s prior ownership, the patents’ age, and a parallel district‑court case as reasons to avoid duplication of effort.
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.
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One seeks PTAB Director Review of its IPR against Wapp Tech, with a brief response window for the patent owner.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
Union Electric filed Director Review requests for IPR2025-01322, -01323, and -01324. The PTAB Director instructed MES, Inc. to respond within five business days, limited to 15 pages and no new evidence.
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for five IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01042, IPR2025-01241, IPR2025-01264, IPR2025-01153, and IPR2025-01242) after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Court decision.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Technologies Inc.
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its inter partes review of Adeia’s U.S. Patent 9,235,428 before the Board institutes the case, arguing that the proceeding is at an early stage and dismissal would save resources.
NIUM PTE. LTD. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
NIUM PTE. Ltd. and Intercurrency Software LLC settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petition.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01457 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. This allows the case to move forward to a merits trial.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,012,252 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group settled their IPR disputes covering three patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before a trial was instituted.
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex and Credo settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,233 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
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.