Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

IPR2024-01494

Western Digital seeks to have the PTAB vacate an instituted IPR on its MTJ hard‑drive patent, arguing that piecemeal review undermines the AIA and that the district court is the proper forum.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01494
Filing Date
27 September 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00180

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al.vsEntropic Communications, LLC

Comcast and Entropic Communications filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 11,785,275. The parties cite 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) to protect sensitive business information.

patentIPR2025-00948

AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.vsHelsinn Healthcare S.A.

Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Helsinn’s U.S. Patent 9,943,515 covering netupitant‑based anti‑emetic regimens, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art combinations and lack secondary considerations.

patentIPR2025-01189

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHannibal IP LLC

Samsung and Hannibal IP have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01189 after reaching a settlement covering multiple patents. The motion cites lack of a final written decision and the benefits of conserving Board resources.

patentIPR2025-01041

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

Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition on the basis of a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, violates the APA, and is arbitrary and capricious. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the IPR.

patentIPR2025-01178

Starbucks Corporation et al.vsPi-Design AG et al.

Starbucks and Pi‑Design have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,695,486. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

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