US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 104 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Jan 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00905
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Apex Beam’s paging patent (U.S. 11,917,581). The petition alleges obviousness over Yeo, 3GPP TS 36.304, and Mallick references and argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
patent · Jan 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-00860
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s CDN patent, arguing anticipation by Newton-471 and obviousness over Dilley, Pai, and Wang. The petition stresses favorable institution factors and argues against discretionary denial.
patent · Jan 5, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00934
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,159,210, asserting that all nine claims are obvious over the 802.11ax draft standard and two earlier patent publications. The petition relies on expert testimony and argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
patent instituted · Jan 5, 2025
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00945
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Helsinn Healthcare S.A.'s anti-emetic patent (8623826). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on independent claim 19, allowing the challenge based on obviousness over prior art like MASCC and Hoffmann.
patent instituted · Jan 5, 2025
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00946
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. successfully secured institution of its IPR against Helsinn Healthcare S.A.'s patent (9186357) for anti-emetic agents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that several claims would be unpatentable over prior art, specifically regarding the combination of triple-drug CINV treatment and superior NK antagonists.
patent instituted · Jan 5, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00934
Samsung challenged Wilus's wireless patent claims based on obviousness in view of prior art standards and publications. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable, specifically citing combinations of Bharadwaj and Sun. This sets up a significant trial over HE WLAN technology.
patent denied · Jan 5, 2025
Docker Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2025-00840
The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR2025-00840, favoring Intellectual Ventures II LLC's request for discretionary denial. The decision cited parallel district court and IPR proceedings as reasons to conserve resources.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 4, 2025
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00822
Shenzhen FBTech and LiTime settled their IPR against LithiumHub's battery‑technology patent before trial, prompting the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 4, 2025
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
· IPR2025-00798
Inter IKEA Systems and Pointwise Ventures settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74.
patent · Jan 4, 2025
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00825
Petitioners and the patent owner jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreements as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). The request is presented as timely and compliant with the applicable statutes and regulations.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 4, 2025
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00825
The parties to IPR2025‑00825 settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,412,994 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, and the motion cites statutory authority for termination.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 4, 2025
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00822
LithiumHub Technologies and two Shenzhen firms settled IPR2025‑00822 concerning a solid‑state lithium battery patent, seeking dismissal of the proceeding.
patent · Jan 4, 2025
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
· IPR2025-00798
IKEA and Pointwise jointly filed a motion requesting that their settlement agreement in IPR2025-00798 be treated as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board’s decision on the confidentiality request is pending.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 4, 2025
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
· IPR2025-00798
Inter IKEA Systems and Pointwise Ventures jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00798 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding per settlement and statutory provisions.
patent denied · Jan 4, 2025
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
· IPR2025-00722
The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s petition to invalidate Ningde Amperex’s 2020 electrolyte patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board held that the prior art did not adequately disclose all claim elements, especially the propyl propionate ratio.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 4, 2025
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00825
Shenzhen FBTech and LiTime settled their IPR challenge to LithiumHub's patent 9,412,994, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial and keep the settlement confidential.
patent · Jan 4, 2025
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-00607
Court decision.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 4, 2025
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-00607
Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four inter partes review proceedings, leading the PTAB to terminate the cases before trial.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 4, 2025
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-00607
Amphenol and Credo have settled the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 11,495,898 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential, seeking termination of the proceeding.
patent · Jan 4, 2025
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
· IPR2025-00798
Inter IKEA Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Pointwise Ventures’ ’812 patent, arguing anticipation by Darrell and obviousness over Boncyk, Darrell, and Fukuda.
patent · Jan 4, 2025
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00822
Shenzhen Fbtech and LiTime have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate LithiumHub’s 9,954,207 solid‑state lithium battery patent. They rely on prior art such as Pevear, Porsche, Poff, Grant and Koebler to argue obviousness and lack of novelty across all 21 claims.
patent · Jan 4, 2025
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-00607
Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Credo’s ’898 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues the patent was issued without substantive examination and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Jan 2, 2025
Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.
· IPR2025-00509
Linkplay Technology has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Sonos’s audio playback patent (U.S. 10,853,023) by asserting anticipation and obviousness over two prior‑art references, Barbe and Richenstein. The petition also argues that discretionary denial does not apply.
patent denied · Dec 31, 2024
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
· PGR2025-00011
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' request to institute a post‑grant review of six claims of its mixed‑level NAND flash memory patent, finding the petitioner had not shown any claim likely unpatentable.
