IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 121 of 218 · 6,517 total
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
ArcelorMittal seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR covering claims 1‑30 of its high‑strength aluminum alloy‑coated steel patent. The owner contends the Board abused its discretion by misapplying Fintiv factors, particularly Factor One and Factor Four, in violation of §314(a).
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
POSCO has filed an authorized response seeking Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal’s steel patent. The petitioner argues the Board’s reliance on Fintiv precedent and lack of overlap with parallel ITC proceedings makes institution improper.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
ArcelorMittal seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering claims 1‑25 of its high‑strength steel patent, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and should have denied institution.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
ArcelorMittal has filed Director Review requests for two IPRs, and POSCO has five days to submit a limited response without new evidence.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology opposes RAI Strategic Holdings' Director Review request, arguing that RAI introduced a new Fintiv argument after institution, contrary to USPTO guidance, and that the Board already addressed all raised issues.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed a rehearing request challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its 9,179,359 patent, arguing that the agency’s retroactive policy change and the new “Fintiv” framework violate due process and statutory limits.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research asks the PTAB Director to terminate Samsung's IPR after arguing the Board relied on a non‑petitioner theory and misapplied discretionary denial factors. The request targets the institution of claim 26 of U.S. Patent 9,179,359.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The patent owner seeks Director Review in IPR2024-01406; the Board limited the petitioner’s response to five pages and barred new evidence.
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
RAI Strategic Holdings seeks Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Kangvape’s disposable vaporizer patent, arguing that a parallel ITC proceeding should preclude institution under the Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Court decision.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 9,070,133 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
ArcelorMittal and POSCO are engaged in Director Review proceedings for two IPRs. The Board has limited the petitioner’s response to five pages and barred new evidence. A deadline of five business days has been set for filing.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate four related IPRs before any trial was instituted.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01393 following a settlement agreement. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the parties argue that early termination saves costs and resources.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB sent an email confirming receipt of the patent owner's Director Review request and imposed a five‑page limit on the response, barred new evidence, and required filing within five business days. No additional briefing is allowed at this stage.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Intelligent Clearing Network settled their dispute over patents 9,070,133 and 9,098,855, leading the PTAB to terminate both inter partes reviews. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield Inc. filed a motion to terminate the IPR against BitSight Technologies' patent 10805331.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
POSCO challenges ArcelorMittal’s steel‑related patent in IPR2024‑01376, defending the Board’s decision to institute the case. The petitioner argues the merits are strong, overlap with parallel ITC proceedings is minimal, and the Board correctly applied Fintiv factors.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate four inter partes review proceedings before institution.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01394 over patent 9,438,615, citing a settlement and the early stage of the proceeding.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
The PTAB terminated IPR2024-01324 (patent 9,098,855) after Quotient Technology and Intelligent Clearing Network reached a settlement, filing a joint motion to end the review.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions jointly request that their settlement agreement be treated as confidential business information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions have entered a settlement agreement and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR on patent 9,098,855.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, asking the PTAB to restrict public access.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield challenges BitSight’s ’615 patent on network‑asset mapping, asserting that the claims are obvious over Longo, McNab, Maltego, Zhang, Tippett and Shull. The petition lists seven §103 grounds covering all 100 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research’s 9,179,359 patent covering differentiated network‑access policies for mobile devices, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Scale Video Coding LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of the 372 Patent, arguing they are obvious over Shao‑028 and Shao‑423. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
POSCO seeks IPR cancellation of ArcelorMittal’s hot‑stamped coated steel patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
POSCO has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of ArcelorMittal’s 2021 steel‑coating patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
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.