technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
666 decisions indexed
Page 7 of 23 · 666 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
CM HK Limited has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving Samsung’s patents. The Board restricts Samsung’s response to 15 pages, no new evidence, and a five‑day filing window.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus requests Director Review to overturn the PTAB's institution of Samsung's IPR, alleging Samsung broke its Sotera‑type promise not to use petition prior art in district‑court litigation. The dispute centers on prior‑art duplication across related patents.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,852,846. The order provides no further substantive analysis of the patent claims.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s petition for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial in a series of IPRs against Telcom Ventures. The Board affirmed the original denial, leaving the patents in force.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus requests Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR, alleging Samsung broke its Sotera‑type stipulation by planning to use the same prior art in district‑court litigation. The Board had previously denied discretionary denial based on Samsung’s promise.
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the IPR against Adeia Media’s 8,542,705 patent before the Board had instituted the trial, citing cost and efficiency. The Board’s prior practice of granting pre‑institution dismissals supports the request.
Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR2026-00094 after reviewing the merits and non-discretionary considerations.
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.
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPR have far more prior‑art citations and often depend on new evidence such as expert testimony. The findings suggest that post‑grant challenges frequently introduce prior art outside the examiner’s original search scope.
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
Regions Bank and USAA jointly moved to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Court decision.
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.
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01237, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The decision reviewed multiple other proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01069, leaving the institution of the Wilus patent intact.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled sixteen inter partes review proceedings covering patent 11,546,110. The Board granted joint motions to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google’s request for Director Review of the TJTM patent was met with a forceful response from the patent owner, who cites 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and a delayed Sotera stipulation as reasons to deny the review. The PTAB had already denied institution of the underlying IPR.
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
Google has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against TJTM’s ’853 patent. The company alleges the USPTO retroactively applied new rules, violating due process and the APA. Google seeks vacatur of the denial and referral to the Board.
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB could institute a trial. The Board granted the joint motions, treated the settlement as confidential, and terminated the proceedings.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Wilus's request to address recent director review decisions and submit new evidence for five IPRs involving Samsung. Wilus sought a short extension to incorporate claim‑construction arguments from pending district‑court litigation, but the Director upheld the existing schedule.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of institution decisions in multiple IPRs, leaving the institutions in place.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) while seeking to terminate the IPR.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑00930. The settlement agreement was kept confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
Belden has requested Director Review of an IPR concerning CommScope’s patent 9,266,697. The patent owner may file a limited response within five business days.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Court decision.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,465 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to terminate the ongoing IPR. The Board is asked to seal the agreement from public disclosure.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00919 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 10,259,465.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,855,720 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
Amazon and Datonics have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,984,445 and jointly request the Board to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement 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.