IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 32 of 218 · 6,517 total
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku has filed a petition to institute IPR on VideoLabs' ’559 patent covering content‑flow control. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Kloba and Robbin and asserts no discretionary denial grounds.
Panchhi Petha Store v.Union Of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court set aside an order passed by the Regional Director which rejected a trademark rectification application. The petitioner argued that the RD exceeded its jurisdiction by making a finding on the ownership of the 'Panchhi' trademark, a matter reserved for IP courts. The court agreed, stating that while the RD can examine name similarity to prevent consumer confusion, it cannot adjudicate disputed questions of trademark ownership between parties involved in ongoing litigation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron submits an authorized response defending the PTAB's institution decision for its memory‑chip etching patent, arguing the Board properly evaluated the Nakajima, Tessariol, and Mushiga references. The Patent Owner's objections are portrayed as mischaracterizations of the prior art.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Micron’s 3D NAND patent, arguing the Board relied on unsupported expert testimony and failed to deny institution despite weak merits.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR over the ’435 hydraulic fracturing patent, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits, and termination is sought for judicial economy.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint request to keep their settlement confidential and to terminate IPR2025‑00031 concerning a hydraulic fracturing patent.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
U.S. Well Services seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering claims 1‑19 of its oilfield‑services patent, arguing the Board misapplied the Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors after a district court denied a stay.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
U.S. Well Services sought a Director Review of the PTAB institution decisions, alleging the petitioners violated a Sotera stipulation. The Director denied the request, leaving the IPRs to proceed to final written decisions.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,972,654 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties seek dismissal under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
The USPTO denied Liberty Energy's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00031, leaving the IPR proceeding intact.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Court decision.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,972,654 B2 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement documents as confidential.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
Catalyst OrthoScience has petitioned the PTAB to institute a post‑grant review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim terms.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 10,655,435, alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art pump‑control references. The petition argues the case meets the Fintiv institutional factors and requests the Board to institute the review.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, asserting that the Nakajima reference makes the claims obvious under §103. The petition argues no discretionary denial applies and seeks institution of the review.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘604 patent, asserting obviousness over Thimmegowda combined with Lee and Kobayashi. The petition seeks institution and argues no discretionary denial applies.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of six claims of Ericsson’s ’654 patent, asserting that prior‑art references Park, Kim, and Panasonic render the claims obvious or anticipated.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
The PTAB denied Catalyst OrthoScience's Post-Grant Review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent (12,023,254). The denial was based on the advanced stage and significant overlap with co-pending district court litigation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's IPR challenge against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D memory structures was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Micron failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its obviousness grounds over prior art combinations.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned to challenge key claims in a semiconductor memory patent held by Yangtze Memory Technologies, leading to institution at the PTAB. The Board focused on obviousness (103) over Nakajima, balancing technical merits with parallel litigation factors.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for Micron against Yangtze Memory Technologies because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on any remaining claims after several key claims were disclaimed.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge U.S. Well Services' smart hydraulic fracturing patent, leading to institution for all 19 claims. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments that prior art references like Norris disclose key elements of the system.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that it believes misinterpreted the means‑plus‑function claim language in NL Giken’s video‑processing patent. The Patent Owner contends the Board’s construction flip‑flopping and procedural errors warrant vacatur under §314(a).
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google successfully defended its IPR on a Bluetooth data‑exchange patent, and the PTAB denied the Patent Owner’s Director Review request, finding the new arguments unsupported.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
DH International Ltd. filed a Director Review request in IPR2024-01322 against Google LLC. The petitioner has five business days to file a concise response, and no new evidence is allowed.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01322, leaving the institution of patent 9,022,294 B2 in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken over U.S. Patent 9,948,968. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, treating the settlement as confidential. The proceeding is now closed.
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.