IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 171 of 189 · 5,670 total
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00535/00536, leaving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent intact.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
VirtaMove successfully defended the Director's discretionary denial of institution for Google’s IPR, arguing statutory authority and rejecting judicial estoppel. The rehearing request was denied, leaving the IPR uninstated.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google seeks a rehearing of the PTAB Director’s decision denying institution of an IPR against VirtaMove’s 14‑year‑old patent, arguing the Director exceeded statutory authority and misapplied a "settled expectations" doctrine.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has requested Director Review of four IPRs against VirtaMove's software migration patent. The Patent Owner may respond within five business days with a limited brief and no new evidence.
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
Zepp Health and the University of Connecticut entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,278,647. The parties jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR before the Board made an institution decision.
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
Zepp Health and the University of Connecticut settled their IPR dispute over Patent 10,278,647 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, ending the proceeding before trial.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s petitions for review of the institution decisions in four IPRs involving VirtaMove’s patent, leaving the original denial of institution in place.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
The Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the institution decisions in four IPRs involving VirtaMove's patent, leaving the institution denials in place.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
The PTAB Director denied Samsung Electronics' request for a Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00535, upholding the earlier decision that the patent was not instituted. The order confirms the institution denial for patent 9,032,039 B2 owned by Mobile Data Technologies.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google seeks rehearing of the PTAB Director's discretionary denial of institution for an IPR against VirtaMove's 14‑year‑old patent, arguing the Director exceeded statutory authority and violated the APA.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google’s request to rehear the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for VirtaMove’s migration patent was rejected. The Director relied on statutory authority and workload considerations to deny institution.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
The PTAB Director denied Google’s petitions for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs involving VirtaMove’s patent 7,519,814. No further substantive review of the patent’s validity was undertaken.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google’s request for rehearing of the USPTO’s discretionary denial of institution was rejected. The Patent Owner argues the Director acted within statutory authority under §§ 314 and 316, and that judicial estoppel does not apply to agency decisions.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed a petition for rehearing, challenging the USPTO Director’s discretionary denial of institution for an IPR against VirtaMove’s cloud‑migration patent. The petition asserts the Director exceeded statutory authority and misapplied a "settled expectations" doctrine.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google’s petition for rehearing of the USPTO’s discretionary denial of an IPR against VirtaMove’s virtualization patent was rejected. The Board upheld the Director’s authority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314 and 316, leaving the patent’s validity untouched.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed Director Review requests for four IPRs against VirtaMove’s patent, and the patent owner may submit a brief, evidence‑free response.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed a petition for rehearing challenging the PTAB Director’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR against VirtaMove’s 2014 data‑migration patent. The petition argues the Director exceeded statutory authority and misapplied a “settled expectations” doctrine.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Board email outlining procedural requirements for Director Review responses in IPR2025-00488 and related cases.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google filed Director Review requests for four IPRs against VirtaMove’s patent 7,784,058. The Patent Owner may submit a brief response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
The PTAB denied Google’s petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs against VirtaMove’s migration‑related patent. The order applies uniformly to all listed cases.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑5 of U.S. Patent 11,069,337, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over prior‑art references Shin, Shimomura, and Kristjansson.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of VirtaMove’s 7,519,814 patent, arguing they are obvious over existing container‑virtualization technologies such as Osman, Tucker, Bandhole, and Gélinas.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Callender patent and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of the ’911 patent, alleging obviousness over Steuer and Eldering references and lack of written‑description support for video‑data features.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies' 9,032,039 patent covering network‑based content management. The petition alleges obviousness over several pre‑2002 web and mobile references and argues discretionary denial is improper.
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Schmidt‑479, Tormasov, Calder, and Schmidt‑629) under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sterling Computers' 7,716,217 patent covering email relevance scoring, citing obviousness over Dumais, Rose, and a Rose‑Bieganski combination.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 11 claims of VirtaMove’s 7,519,814 patent covering container virtualization. The petition argues obviousness over prior‑art systems such as Osman, Tucker, Bandhole and Gélinas and asserts no discretionary denial grounds.
Carvana, LLC v.International Business Machines Corporation
Carvana petitions the PTAB to invalidate IBM’s ’719 patent covering a dual‑MVC web architecture, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier MVC and JavaScript publications.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ 9,032,039 patent covering mobile content sharing. The petition argues the claims are obvious over two prior‑art combinations and urges the Board to institute the review.
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.