IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 12 of 218 · 6,517 total
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. and Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc. entered into a settlement agreement covering U.S. Patent No. 11,034,007 and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00261. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. submitted an email to the PTAB Director requesting a rehearing after the Director Review denied institution of its IPR against Nutanix, Inc.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings and Kyocera reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, requesting termination of the IPR concerning Patent 11,845,167.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The PTAB denied Tessell, Inc.'s petition for rehearing of the Director Review order that had vacated the institution of an IPR against Nutanix, Inc.'s patent 11,860,818. The decision leaves the prior order in place and no claims were examined.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,845,167 and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00264. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and the fact that the Board has not yet decided the merits.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The PTAB notified the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-00298. The petitioner is limited to a five‑page response filed within five business days, and no new evidence may be introduced.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00262 concerning U.S. Patent 10,478,954, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial of institution was rejected. The Board found Arm lacked a concrete interest and the prior art cited was cumulative, supporting the denial.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,984,228 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to MediaTek, leaving the proceeding active only for Arm Ltd.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm Ltd filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial that blocked an IPR on its multicore processor patent (U.S. 8,984,228). The petition cites the settlement of related litigation and prior Board findings that identical claims were invalid over the Sinharoy reference.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The Board is asked to restrict access to the agreement to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Kyocera and Koki Holdings settled their dispute over four industrial‑tool patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the pending IPRs and keep the settlement confidential.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm Ltd petitions the PTAB Director to vacate a discretionary denial and institute an IPR on its multicore processor patent after the related Texas lawsuit was settled and dismissed.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings America and Kyocera Senco settled their IPR dispute over four patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑36 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent 11,860,818, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art database UI disclosures. The petition argues that the examiner never considered the cited references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed a petition to invalidate claims 6, 7, 10, and 20 of YMTC’s 3D NAND joint‑opening patent, asserting obviousness over Costa combined with Liu, Lee, and Toyama. The petitioner also argues there are no discretionary reasons to deny institution.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of Inari Medical’s ’005 patent covering a catheter‑based aspiration system with a hemostasis valve, alleging obviousness over Garrison, Schaffer, Hartley and Eller references.
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 the Costa reference and requesting the Board to institute the review.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm and MediaTek have filed an IPR petition challenging Daedalus Prime's multicore cache coherence patent, asserting that all claims are obvious over prior art such as Agarwal, Sinharoy, Blumrich, and Sistla.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Kyocera Senco’s 2019 gas‑spring nailer patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of Kyocera Senco’s 2023 gas‑spring nailer patent, asserting obviousness over several older patents and arguing that the “lifter” term is means‑plus‑function.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Kyocera's 2022 gas‑spring fastener driving tool patent, asserting obviousness over several older nail‑gun patents and raising means‑plus‑function issues.
Lam Research Corp. v.Inpria Corporation
Lam Research has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Inpria’s ’048 patent covering EUV photoresist deposition. The petition relies on obviousness and anticipation grounds over Meyers, Weidman, Berney, and Molloy, and raises a new‑matter issue. The Board must decide whether to institute the trial.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings has petitioned an IPR against Kyocera Senco’s 11,034,007 gas‑spring nailer patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over six decades‑old nail‑gun references and challenging claim constructions of “lifter” and “storage chamber.” The petition seeks cancellation of all twenty claims.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Nutanix, Inc., regarding database provisioning technology. The Board found that Tessell demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over multiple prior art combinations.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR in the Tessell v. Nutanix case, citing administrative inefficiency because the petitioner includes nearly all inventors of the challenged patent.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care challenges Inari Medical's hemostasis valve patent (11554005) on obviousness grounds. The PTAB instituted the IPR, requiring further review of claims 1-15 based on prior art combinations.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory because the patent owner had successfully filed a statutory disclaimer covering all challenged claims related to 3D memory devices.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools regarding fastener driving tools. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on multiple prior art references, despite complex claim construction arguments.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. successfully secured institution in this IPR against Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc., challenging all 30 claims of Patent No. 11241776. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail based on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
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.