Ericsson Inc et al. v. Headwater Partners II LLC

IPR2024-01468

Samsung and Headwater have filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, seeking Board approval to seal the document.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01468
Filing Date
20 September 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00308

Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al.vsRazdog Holdings LLC

Twitch Interactive successfully challenged a patent claim in the PTAB, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board adopted Petitioner's narrow construction of 'real time,' favoring transmission upon availability without significant delay over strict human-perception timing.

patentIPR2026-00004

Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al.vsMalikie Innovations Ltd.

Nintendo has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate six claims of Malikie Innovations' handheld directional‑input patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references.

patentIPR2025-00774

Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC

Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year settled‑expectations standard to block their IPR petition against Audio Pod IP’s patent. They argue the standard violates the AIA, the APA, and due‑process rights. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits.

patentIPR2024-00494

Microchip Technology, Inc.vsAptiv Technologies AG et al.

The Director denied Microchip Technology's request for review of the institution decisions that had denied institution of its IPRs against Aptiv's vehicle communication patent. The denial leaves the institution denials intact.

patentIPR2025-00366

Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC

Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 15‑41 of Mullen Industries’ ’117 patent covering wireless device location sharing, citing multiple prior‑art combinations under §103.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call