IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 1 of 218 · 6,517 total
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' request to institute a post‑grant review of six claims of its mixed‑level NAND flash memory patent, finding the petitioner had not shown any claim likely unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison’s petition to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the challenger failed to show any claim was likely unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash patent. The petitioner alleges the claims are abstract, lack written description, are indefinite, and are obvious over prior art. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,339,493 and jointly request the Board to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493, a camera‑technology patent. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,339,493 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPR before the Board could institute a trial, and the settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google’s request for Director Review of a PTAB institution denial was challenged by Pegasus’s counsel, who argued the Director’s decision was proper and that new arguments were improper. The response seeks to keep the denial in place.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other carriers sought a Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Pegasus Wireless. The Board found the request lacked a proper basis and introduced new arguments, and therefore denied the review.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other U.S. carriers have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for a patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. They argue the denial violated due process and ignored favorable factors such as a Sotera stipulation and economic interests.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The USPTO Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the PTAB's decision not to institute several telecom-related IPRs against Pegasus Wireless Innovation. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and other carriers filed a request for director review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against a telecom patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. The petition argues the Board abused discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and misapplied Fintiv factors.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00293 and related cases, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Vervain’s ‘370 hybrid NAND‑flash patent, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art. The petition targets claims 1‑18 and seeks cancellation under §§ 112(a), 112(b), 103 and 101. Institution of the review is pending.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 5‑14 of Maxell’s ’493 electric‑camera patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and arguing against discretionary denial.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Intellectual Ventures’ ’138 patent covering UMTS radio‑bearer data selection, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that no discretionary denial grounds exist.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and major telecom carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s ’644 patent on MTC coverage enhancement, arguing the claims are anticipated and obvious over Lee, You, and Zhuang prior art.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over Costa and, when combined with Oh, lack patentability. The petition argues no discretionary denial grounds and seeks institution.
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of a 5G CQI‑table patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. They contend the claims are obvious over prior‑art standards documents and a PCT publication. The petition seeks institution of the review.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Procomm’s distributed base‑station patent (US 8,583,100). They contend the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Aarflot, Laroia and Wiedeman and argue that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have petitioned the PTAB to review Procomm’s 8,497,813 panel‑antenna patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the Board should not deny institution.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have filed an IPR petition challenging Procomm’s ‘521 patent covering venturi fan‑assisted cooling for telecom equipment, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art patents. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of all challenged claims.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
Ericsson and Verizon have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of Procomm's 2006 DAS gain‑control patent, arguing that the Solum prior art anticipates every limitation. They also argue the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success that several claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Eckert and Bucknell.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge brought by Micron Technology against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D memory device patents. The Board found the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over prior art references.
Insulet Corporation v.Eoflow Co Ltd
The Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Insulet Corporation's application for a cost decision against Eoflow Co Ltd, which had unsuccessfully attempted to intervene in provisional measures proceedings concerning patent EP4201327. The Court held that the rules on costs (Rules 150 et seq. RoP) require a prior existing decision on costs in principle, and since the order refusing Eoflow's intervention contained no such cost decision, the application was procedurally deficient.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning a patent infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation related to European Patent No. 3 678 321. The technically qualified judge Patrice Vidon resigned pursuant to Art. 9(2) of the Statutes, necessitating the assignment of a replacement judge to ensure continuity of the panel.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber of Hamburg concerning patent EP2642632. The Rapporteur rejected the defendants' (Xiaomi entities) request for early dismissal of the plaintiff's (Nera Innovations Ltd.) conditional requests to amend the patent under R. 30 RoP and corresponding amendments to the claim requests under R. 263 RoP. The court held that the substantive examination of these amendment requests should be reserved for the panel's final decision at the oral hearing, rather than decided as a preliminary matter under R. 334(h) RoP.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,199,072 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
IBM and Croga Innovations have settled their IPR over patent 10,601,780 and jointly filed a request to keep the settlement agreement confidential. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.