IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 54 of 218 · 6,517 total
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Samsung and Headwater have filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, seeking Board approval to seal the document.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Samsung and Headwater have entered a settlement that resolves their disputes over U.S. Patent No. 9,094,868. They jointly move to terminate the inter partes review as to Samsung and request confidentiality for the settlement.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
SK Nexilis seeks a Director Review to keep its copper‑electroplating patent alive after the PTAB instituted an IPR. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and over‑relied on unsupported expert testimony.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana and Veeva settled their dispute over patents 9,055,023 and 9,391,937, leading the PTAB to terminate both inter partes review proceedings before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered confidential and kept separate from the patent files.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Court decision.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America challenges Cyandia’s notification‑method patent, arguing the Board correctly found no written description support for the dynamic alert step and that the owner’s 2008 provisional evidence is irrelevant. SAP seeks a Director denial of the owner’s review request.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The USPTO denied SAP America's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01433, leaving Cyandia's patent 8,751,948 B2 instituted.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
Cyandia challenges SAP’s institution of an IPR on its notification‑alert patent, asserting the Board ignored key prior‑art and misapplied written‑description analysis. The patent owner seeks director review to vacate the decision.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cyandia’s WebSphere‑related patent, arguing the Board’s reliance on speculative overlap and misapplication of Sotera precedent. The petition urges the Director to overturn the denial and institute review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung challenges a Director Review request by Harbor Island Dynamic over U.S. Patent 9,245,826. The response argues that the Board’s claim construction and obviousness findings were correct and that no Director Review grounds exist.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung's request for Director Review of PTAB institution decisions in four IPRs, including the 9,245,826 patent, was denied. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Court decision.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The USPTO denied SAP America’s request for director review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the challenge to Cyandia’s patent 8,751,948. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana and Veeva have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,055,023 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, which had not yet been instituted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Court decision.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America has been notified that Cyandia’s request for Director Review in IPR2024‑01433 is pending, with a tight five‑day response window and no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's petitions for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs, keeping the institution rulings intact.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Cyandia’s ’948 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over IBM WebSphere documentation combined with the Austin‑Lane publication.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials petitions an IPR against SK nexilis’s 10,811,689 patent covering electrolytic copper foil for lithium‑ion batteries, asserting that claims 1‑10 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all eleven claims of SK nexilis’s 2019 copper‑foil patent, arguing that the claimed surface‑roughness parameters and protective‑layer features are obvious in view of multiple prior‑art references.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Ericsson, Nokia, T‑Mobile, AT&T and Verizon have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑34 of U.S. Patent 9,094,868, arguing that the invention is obvious over earlier patents by Jarvinen and Fox. The petition seeks institution of an inter‑partes review and cancellation of the claims.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Cyandia’s 2014 patent on secure information delivery, arguing lack of written‑description support and obviousness over a PCT publication combined with Austin‑Lane. The petition also challenges potential discretionary denials under §325(d) and Fintiv.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials petitions to invalidate SK nexilis’s 2022 electrolytic copper foil patent, asserting that all eight claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and argues that no secondary considerations exist to rescue the claims.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials petitions to invalidate SK nexilis' 11,591,706 copper‑foil patent, asserting that all ten claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition argues against discretionary denial and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of Veeva's email‑control patent, arguing obviousness over a set of prior‑art publications and urging the Board to institute the review.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of Veeva's email‑control patent, asserting obviousness over a set of prior‑art publications. The petition argues that discretionary factors strongly favor institution.
Axion Biosystems, Inc. v.Agilent Technologies, Inc.
Axion Biosystems petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Agilent’s ’508 patent, asserting that prior‑art Xu‑752 and Jones render all 30 claims obvious or anticipated. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire claim set.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung seeks IPR institution to invalidate Harbor Island Dynamic’s 7,772,673 patent covering deep‑trench isolation with chamfered corners, arguing the claims are obvious or anticipated by prior art such as Yin, Koshimizu, and Norström.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic’s 9,245,826 patent covering anchor vias for backside metal adhesion, arguing that all 20 claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Ericsson Inc et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Headwater Partners II LLC's patent (9094868), challenging claims 11-15 on obviousness grounds. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that the claimed link quality estimation would have been obvious over Jarvinen and Fox.
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.