technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 8 of 36 · 1,070 total
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
Volex PLC and Credo Technology Group settled their IPR disputes covering three patents, including U.S. Patent 11,012,252, and jointly moved to terminate the proceedings. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01219, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 11012252.
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 12,119,463 filed by Ascend Elements against Duesenfeld GmbH.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
The USPTO denied AMD and Pensando's request for rehearing of a Director discretionary denial in IPR2025-00478 concerning patent 8,924,596. The order affirms the original decision without further review.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs against Mobile Data Technologies’ patents, leaving the institution denials in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC
Court decision.
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Board denied institution of multiple IPRs, including the proceeding involving Apple Inc. and Advanced Coding Technologies LLC.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01164, allowing Samsung to proceed against Wilus regarding patent 12004262. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC
Apple and Vampire Labs have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,358,103, and they have jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.
CentralSquare (CST) opposes Carbyne’s request for a good‑cause extension to seek Director Review in IPR2025‑01179, asserting the deadline was missed intentionally and no claim‑construction conflict exists. The email urges the Director to deny the contingent request.
Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC
Apple and Vampire Labs reached a settlement, prompting a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,358,103. The Board granted the termination without addressing the merits.
Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC
Apple and Vampire Labs filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business‑confidential and to terminate the IPR.
CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.
The USPTO denied Carbyne’s request for an extension to file a Director Review, finding no good cause and citing Revvo precedent. CentralSquare’s claim‑construction positions were already known before the deadline.
Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01215, allowing Apple Inc. to challenge Vampire Labs' patent 8358103.
CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01179 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. This decision allows the case to proceed to trial.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for several IPR proceedings involving Apple Inc. and CardWare Inc., meaning no trial will take place.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Office Director denied institution of inter partes review (IPR2025-01127) for the challenged patent, meaning no trial will proceed on the claims.
Perfect Corporation v.Zugara, Inc.
Perfect Corp. and Zugara, Inc. settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,482,517. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Director denied institution for several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, including IPR2025-01126. This procedural denial means no trial will be held on the challenged patents.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01165, allowing Samsung Electronics to proceed with challenging Wilus Institute's patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple IPR petitions, halting the review process before any trial could begin.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied the institution of IPR proceedings, including one involving Apple Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent claims.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution of the IPR petition filed by Apple Inc. against CardWare Inc.'s patent 10339520, meaning no trial will proceed.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Board denied the institution of several IPR petitions, meaning no trials will proceed for these challenges.
Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.
Starbucks and Pi‑Design have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,695,486 and jointly seek to keep the settlement confidential under statutory provisions.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Court decision.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01121 in the dispute between Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power Equipment because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB notified the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-01171 over patent 7,051,306. The petitioner has five business days to submit a limited response; no new evidence is allowed.
Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00057, allowing the challenger to proceed with trial against patent 12234236.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01171, allowing Infineon to challenge MOSAID's patent 7051306.
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.