IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 100 of 189 · 5,670 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies reached a settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-01049 before trial. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Intercurrency Software’s 10,062,107 patent covering a consolidated multi‑currency trading platform after Wise PLC showed a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Intercurrency Software’s ’930 patent covering cross‑currency trading platforms, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one of the 15 challenged claims.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR filed by Intel (challenger) against AX Wireless’s ’272 patent covering OFDM header‑repetition techniques, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Hansen, WWiSE, and Choi references.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
The USPTO denied Micron's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs against Palisade Technologies, leaving the institution denials in place.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has requested Director Review of its IPR challenges (IPR2025-01008 and IPR2025-01009) against Palisade Technologies. The patent owner is limited to a 15‑page response within five business days and may not introduce new evidence.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
The USPTO denied Micron's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01008, leaving the original denial in place.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron’s attempt to overturn a DRAM‑related patent is rebuffed as the PTAB finds its Director Review requests introduce prohibited new evidence and deceptive arguments. Patent Owner urges denial of the requests.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent. The petition stresses examiner error, misuse of settled‑expectations doctrine, and critical national‑security implications of Micron’s domestic memory‑chip expansion.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent, arguing examiner error and national‑security stakes. The petition challenges the Board’s reliance on “settled expectations” based solely on patent age.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
Court decision.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving SoundClear’s patent 9,804,819. The denial leaves the original institution decisions, which denied institution, in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial, arguing that the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule unlawfully limits IPR filings. The petition contends the rule violates the APA, the AIA’s filing deadlines, and due‑process rights.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
Sony Interactive Entertainment and AX Wireless settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,917,272 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board granted the termination and confidentiality request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving patent 11,698,687, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
Sony Interactive Entertainment and AX Wireless have settled their Wi‑Fi patent dispute, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board has not yet instituted the proceeding, and the parties seek to avoid further litigation costs.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR against CM HK’s sensor‑fusion patent. The petition alleges institutional error due to unresolved claim construction, improper reliance on expert testimony, and failure to identify material error in prior‑art translation.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
Volkswagen and Longhorn Automotive have settled their dispute over a PET/CT imaging patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The related district court case was dismissed, leaving no further litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board was asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential and separate it from the IPR file.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies have jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b), separating it from the IPR file for patent 11,334,918.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR on Intercurrency Software’s 10,776,863 patent covering a consolidated trading platform, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑12 based on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron’s attempts to obtain director review of a denied IPR are rebuffed. Palisade Technologies argues Micron introduced new, unsupported evidence and made false injunction claims, violating Board rules. The Director is urged to deny all three requests.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a denied institution of IPR 2025‑01009, arguing that the Board ignored national‑security stakes and relied improperly on patent age. The request cites examiner errors and Fintiv factors supporting institution.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron requests PTAB Director review of a denied institution for IPR against Palisade’s 9,281,314 memory‑chip patent, citing national‑security stakes, examiner error, and Fintiv factors. The petition argues the Board’s settled‑expectations analysis is misplaced.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron requests a Director Review to overturn the PTAB's denial of institution for an IPR against its DRAM patents, citing national‑security importance, examiner error, and improper reliance on settled expectations.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
Micron seeks director review of a PTAB denial to institute an IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent, arguing examiner error, improper settled‑expectations reliance, and national‑security stakes.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,334,918 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317 and cites Board policy favoring settlement before any merit decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
The PTAB Director has sent a Director Review request for Samsung's IPR challenge, requiring a concise, issue‑limited response within five business days and prohibiting new evidence.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
Court decision.
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.