technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,070 decisions indexed
Page 9 of 36 · 1,070 total
Viant Technology LLC et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, including IPR2025-01163. No trial will be instituted in these proceedings.
LiveIntent, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for the IPR challenge against AlmondNet's patent 8494904, meaning no trial will proceed on this matter.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review proceedings, meaning no trials will proceed on the challenged patents.
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, preventing trials in these cases.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
The USPTO Board denied institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving Microsoft and Lemko, meaning no trial will proceed.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO denied institution for an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding involving Monahan Products and Baby Jogger regarding patent 9403550.
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO Board denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition filed by Monahan Products against Baby Jogger regarding patent 8955869.
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Director denied institution for the IPR proceedings involving Aerin Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., halting further trial.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed a Petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO Director’s denial of institution for patent 7,804,891, alleging statutory and procedural violations.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, meaning no trials will proceed in these cases.
Apple Inc. v.LS Cable & System Ltd. et al.
The USPTO Board denied institution of the IPR for Apple Inc. against LS Cable & System Ltd., finding that Apple failed to meet the legal threshold required to proceed with the challenge.
Evenflo Company, Inc. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01140 and related proceedings after determining the petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard. This moves the cases forward to merits review.
Almendra Pte. Ltd. et al. v.Fienile Agronecócios LTDA
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00055, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review after determining a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Amazon.com, Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
The USPTO Director denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition filed by Amazon.com against VB Assets' patent 11087385.
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.USTA Technology, LLC
The USPTO Board denied the institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed by AT&T Services against USTA Technology's patent RE47720.
Evenflo Company, Inc. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01122 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. This moves the case forward to a merits trial.
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia and Element TV have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review before it was instituted.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple IPR petitions, including one involving Google LLC and Valtrus Innovations Limited. No trial will proceed on these matters.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
The PTAB denied the institution of IPR2026-00101 against SitNet's patent 12245325. The denial was based on Meta Platforms failing to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
The USPTO Director issued a partial Institution Decision for multiple IPRs, granting review in five proceedings while denying it in four others based on the likelihood of prevailing.
INTELLIGENT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT CORP. v.Cisco Technology, Inc., et al.
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01588 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Union Electric’s request for review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,596,517. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
Google and Pointwise Ventures settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
The USPTO Director denied Geotab’s request for review of the institution decisions in IPR2025‑01026 (and related IPR2025‑01027), leaving the institution of the patents intact.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
An email from the PTAB Director informs the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-01117 and IPR2025-01118, outlining the response requirements and prohibiting new evidence.
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
The PTAB denied Geotab's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs, leaving the institution decisions in place.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied institution for multiple IPR petitions filed by Union Electric Company et al. against MES, Inc., preventing a trial from taking place.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director denied the institution of multiple IPRs filed by Union Electric Company against MES, Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent claims.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
Home Depot and H2 Intellect settled their post‑grant review of patent 12,056,736 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding before instituting trial and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
OnePlus has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving a Pantech patent. The patent owner may respond within five business days, but no new evidence is allowed. The Director will determine whether to grant the review.
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.