US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 103 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent instituted · Jan 10, 2025
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
· IPR2025-01575
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01575, allowing Tesla to challenge Perceptive Automata's patent 11753046 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent · Jan 8, 2025
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-01370
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Competitive Access Systems’ ’343 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation technologies.
patent · Jan 8, 2025
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-01371
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4,7,8‑12, and 17 of U.S. Patent 10,868,908, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references Kotzin and Phatak, alone or combined with Peirce, Held, or Decasper.
patent · Jan 8, 2025
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-01218
Marvell has filed an IPR petition challenging Credo’s U.S. Patent 10,877,233 covering active electrical cables with pre‑equalization, asserting that the invention is obvious over prior‑art references such as Lugthart, Gorecki, Cornelius and Samaan.
patent instituted · Jan 8, 2025
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-01218
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01218, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 10877233.
patent denied · Jan 7, 2025
Syngenta Crop Protection AG v.Inflexion Point Technologies, LLC
· PGR2025-00045
The PTAB denied Syngenta’s request for rehearing of its post‑grant review denial on patent 12,102,027. The Board concluded the petitioner failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion in the original decision.
patent · Jan 7, 2025
SCIENTIFIC DRILLING INTERNATIONAL, INC. v.Gunnar LLLP
· PGR2025-00061
Scientific Drilling International has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of Gunnar LLLP’s ‘780 patent on magnetic ranging while drilling. The petition alleges lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over several prior‑art patents.
patent · Jan 7, 2025
Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
· IPR2025-01240
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging VB Assets’ U.S. Patent 11,080,758, asserting that all 44 claims are obvious over existing voice‑commerce technologies. The petition relies on six §103 grounds, pairing each claim set with prior‑art references such as Aretoulaki, Ramer, Kennewick, Hao and Jong.
patent denied · Jan 7, 2025
SCIENTIFIC DRILLING INTERNATIONAL, INC. v.Gunnar LLLP
· PGR2025-00061
The PTAB denied institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR) for patent 12110780. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were unpatentable.
patent denied · Jan 7, 2025
Syngenta Crop Protection AG v.Inflexion Point Technologies, LLC
· PGR2025-00045
Syngenta Crop Protection AG's petition to invalidate Inflexion Point Technologies' patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence of anticipation or obviousness across multiple grounds, rejecting all challenges including enablement.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 5, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
· IPR2025-00953
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,613,060 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
patent · Jan 5, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00934
Samsung challenges a Director Review request by Wilus over its Wi‑Fi 6 patent. The response argues that discretionary denial factors favor referral and that the cited grounds do not merit review, keeping the IPR instituted.
patent · Jan 5, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00934
Samsung seeks to uphold an IPR institution on Wilus’s Wi‑Fi packet‑format patent, while Wilus requests Director Review to overturn the institution, arguing errors on public accessibility, discretionary denial, and claim‑construction inconsistency.
patent denied · Jan 5, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00934
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs involving Wilus's patent 11,159,210. The institution decisions remain in effect.
patent denied · Jan 5, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00934
Wilus sought leave to address recent director‑review decisions and submit new evidence in five IPRs, but the Director denied the request, citing policy against inconsistent claim constructions and statutory timing constraints.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00898
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of sixteen inter partes review proceedings, including IPR2025-00898 covering patent 10,951,271. The Board granted the motion to terminate under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
patent instituted · Jan 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00894
Apple’s IPR petition was granted, instituting review of all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 5G paging patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art You, Liu, and Mallick.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 5, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
· IPR2025-00953
Samsung and Hermes IP Management settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,613,060 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the parties' motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00898
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR concerning Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent (U.S. 10,951,271). The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that termination serves public policy.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-00860
Kaifi LLC and Amazon reached a settlement, filing a joint motion to stay court deadlines while they finalize the agreement.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 5, 2025
Docker Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2025-00840
Docker Inc. and Intellectual Ventures II LLC settled their inter partes review disputes before trial, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPRs. The settlement covered three patents and the agreements were treated as confidential business information.
patent · Jan 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00922
Apple Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent, asserting obviousness over Liu and Park publications. The petition details a predictable combination of prior‑art teachings and argues against discretionary denial.
patent · Jan 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00894
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 2019 patent covering paging methods in LTE/5G networks, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art standards and patents. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Jan 5, 2025
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00946
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 23 claims of Helsinn’s anti‑emetic patent covering netupitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone regimens. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and disputes the asserted unexpected synergy. No decision has been issued yet.
