US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 107 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Dec 27, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
· IPR2025-00025
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑19 of Truesight’s ‘879 patent covering V‑chip‑based parental controls. The petition alleges obviousness over prior art references Sullivan, Leung, and Craner and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent instituted · Dec 27, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00009
The PTAB instituted the PGR petition challenging Halozyme's patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides. The Board found that the claims were not sufficiently supported by the specification regarding enablement and obviousness, despite Petitioner's arguments about the genus size.
patent denied · Dec 26, 2024
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
· PGR2025-00010
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' petition to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent. The Board concluded Phison failed to show any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under §§ 101, 112, 103. No trial was instituted.
patent denied · Dec 26, 2024
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
· PGR2025-00010
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ petition for post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding no sufficient evidence that claims 1‑6 are unpatentable.
patent · Dec 26, 2024
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
· PGR2025-00010
Phison Electronics files a PGR petition to invalidate Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash memory patent, asserting abstractness, lack of written description, indefiniteness and obviousness. The petition leans on an expert declaration and extensive prior‑art citations.
patent · Dec 26, 2024
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
· PGR2025-00010
Micron (on behalf of Phison) petitions the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Vervain’s 10,950,300 flash‑memory patent, arguing they are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under § 314(a).
patent denied · Dec 26, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00290
The PTAB denied the petitioners' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case covering patent 10,721,118 owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation.
patent denied · Dec 26, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00290
Google and other carriers’ request for director review of the PTAB’s denial of institution in a wireless patent case was rejected for lacking a valid basis and introducing new arguments.
patent · Dec 26, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00290
Google and other carriers filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against patent 10,721,118. They contend the Board abused discretion, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed policy, seeking a review of the denial.
patent · Dec 26, 2024
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
· PGR2025-00010
Phison Electronics Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Vervain’s ‘369 NAND‑flash patent, alleging abstractness, lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art.
patent · Dec 26, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00290
Google and a consortium of carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate U.S. Patent 10,721,118, which covers dual‑connectivity methods for user equipment. The petition relies on the Futaki publication and 3GPP standards to argue anticipation and obviousness of all 15 claims.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 24, 2024
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
· PGR2025-00012
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,938,201 and jointly moved to terminate the pending post‑grant review. The Board is expected to grant the termination under statutory authority.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 24, 2024
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
· PGR2025-00012
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,938,201, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the post‑grant review.
patent · Dec 24, 2024
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
· PGR2025-00012
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,938,201 and jointly request the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
patent · Dec 24, 2024
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00378
iRhythm Technologies filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of five IPR petitions on the basis of a new “settled expectations” rule. The petitioner contends the rule is retroactive, violates precedent, and would harm patent quality. The request seeks vacatur of the denial and institution of the IPRs.
patent · Dec 24, 2024
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00378
The PTAB denied iRhythm’s petition to institute an IPR against Welch Allyn’s cardiac‑monitor patent. Welch Allyn’s counsel filed an authorized response asserting the Director’s holistic assessment was proper and that the petitioner offered no new evidence. The request for review is therefore expected to be denied.
patent · Dec 24, 2024
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00317
Verizon and its partners seek Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against KT Corp.’s 942 patent. They argue the denial violated due process and misapplied Fintiv factors, urging the Board to institute the review.
patent · Dec 24, 2024
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00378
The Board acknowledged receipt of Director Review requests for several IPRs, including IPR2025‑00378, and instructed the patent owner to file a limited response within five business days. No new evidence may be submitted.
patent denied · Dec 24, 2024
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00317
The PTAB denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in multiple IPRs, including the Verizon Wireless challenge to Pegasus Wireless’s patent. The Board affirmed its original decision not to institute the IPRs.
patent · Dec 24, 2024
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00137
Verizon and other carriers have filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on the ’272 patent owned by Korea’s KT Corp. They argue the denial violated due‑process and that institutional review is needed for efficiency and fairness.
patent · Dec 24, 2024
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
· PGR2025-00012
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of Johns Hopkins' ’201 patent covering low‑molecular‑weight FAP‑α imaging agents, arguing obviousness, lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and indefiniteness.
patent · Dec 24, 2024
Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2025-00325
Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging ParkerVision’s 9,118,528 patent covering down‑conversion receiver technology, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
patent · Dec 24, 2024
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00377
iRhythm has filed an IPR petition challenging 26 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable heart‑monitor patent, asserting obviousness over Jensen, Kroll and other prior art. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and seeks cancellation of the claims.
patent · Dec 24, 2024
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v.AbTis Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-00283
Ajinomoto has filed an IPR petition challenging AbTis’s U.S. Patent 11,896,675 covering site‑specific antibody‑drug conjugates. The petitioner alleges lack of written description, improper priority, and that all 13 claims are anticipated or obvious over several pre‑grant publications and conference disclosures. The petition seeks cancellation of every claim.
