US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 108 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Dec 24, 2024
Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2025-00324
Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 14 of ParkerVision’s ‘177 patent, asserting obviousness over Tayloe, a TI multiplexer datasheet, Razavi, and Uzunoglu references. The petition argues that the prior art predates the patent’s critical date and that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
patent · Dec 24, 2024
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00137
Verizon and co‑petitioners seek to invalidate a 5G resource‑allocation patent owned by Pegasus Wireless, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art standards and publications. The petition requests the PTAB to institute the IPR and cancel all 20 challenged claims.
patent instituted · Dec 24, 2024
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
· PGR2025-00012
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE challenged The Johns Hopkins University's claims regarding FAP-α targeting moieties based on obviousness and patentability issues (103/112). The Board instituted the PGR, finding that the claims face significant challenges related to enablement and indefiniteness.
patent instituted · Dec 24, 2024
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v.AbTis Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-00283
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against AbTis Co., Ltd.'s patent (11896675) covering Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs). The Board found sufficient evidence for institution on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness regarding claim 11.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Dec 23, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
· IPR2025-00358
Samsung successfully challenged all 16 claims of Molecular Rebar Design’s ’282 patent covering carbon‑nanotube binders for batteries. The Board found the claims obvious over prior art and adopted a construction that “discrete” does not require non‑attachment.
patent denied · Dec 23, 2024
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00363
The USPTO Director denied iRhythm’s petitions for review of the USPTO’s discretionary denial to institute several IPRs against Welch Allyn, leaving the original institution denials in place.
patent denied · Dec 23, 2024
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00363
iRhythm’s request to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for its cardiac monitor patent was met with a detailed response from Welch Allyn, asserting the Director’s holistic discretionary denial was proper under §314(a). The Board’s denial stands pending any further review.
patent denied · Dec 23, 2024
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2025-00341
Tesla’s petition to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 7,181,743 was denied after the Board found no abuse of discretion. The Board held that the prior‑art reference Welch does not disclose the claimed event‑correlation capabilities.
patent · Dec 23, 2024
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00363
iRhythm Technologies seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB Acting Director's discretionary denial of its IPR petitions against Welch Allyn’s wearable cardiac‑monitor patents. The petitioner argues the new "settled expectations" rule was applied retroactively, violates precedent, and harms patent quality.
patent instituted · Dec 23, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
· IPR2025-00356
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Samsung's challenge to claims 1‑8 of U.S. Patent 8,808,909 and granted Samsung’s motion to join the earlier IPR filed by LG Energy Solution, consolidating the disputes.
patent · Dec 23, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00354
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks a Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Stratasys’s 8,747,097 patent. The petitioner argues the denial violates statutory requirements and recent guidance on Sotera stipulations. The request highlights examiner error and lack of settled expectations by the patent owner.
patent · Dec 23, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00354
Stratasys, the owner of U.S. Pat. 8,747,097 covering 3‑D printing technology, has responded to a challenger’s request for Director Review, arguing the request is untimely and lacks a statutory basis. The patent owner urges the Director to deny the review.
patent · Dec 23, 2024
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
· IPR2025-00351
Court decision.
patent · Dec 23, 2024
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00376
An email from the PTAB Director informs Welch Allyn that iRhythm’s Director Review requests for multiple IPRs have been received, outlining a five‑business‑day deadline for a concise response and prohibiting new evidence.
patent · Dec 23, 2024
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
· IPR2025-00351
The PTAB Director has received review requests for IPR2025-00349, -00350, and -00351. The petitioner must respond within five days, limited to five pages, with no new evidence.
patent · Dec 23, 2024
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ArcelorMittal
· IPR2025-00371
POSCO has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of ArcelorMittal’s hot‑stamped coated steel patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition argues that the references were not considered during prosecution and that a skilled artisan would have combined them to achieve the claimed inventions.
patent · Dec 23, 2024
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00363
iRhythm has filed a petition for inter partes review of Welch Allyn’s U.S. Patent 10,159,422 covering a wearable ECG sensor. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references—Matsumura, Jensen, and Ozguz—and asks the PTAB to cancel them.
patent · Dec 23, 2024
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2025-00341
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Pat. 7,181,743. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Welch whitepaper and related publications, and disputes any discretionary denial.
patent instituted · Dec 23, 2024
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
· PGR2025-00013
Therabody successfully challenged Hyperice's patent claims in a PTAB proceeding focused on massaging devices. The Board found likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness and statutory deficiencies, particularly regarding the combination of prior art references.
patent instituted · Dec 23, 2024
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ArcelorMittal
· IPR2025-00371
POSCO Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal's patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 25 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness (103) involving various prior art combinations.
patent instituted · Dec 23, 2024
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
· IPR2025-00351
Stingray Group Inc. successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against a patent covering multimedia content delivery systems. The Board found that Petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing across multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, moving the case to the merits phase.
patent denied · Dec 23, 2024
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2025-00341
The PTAB denied Tesla's IPR against Intellectual Ventures II over patent 7,181,743. The Board found that the prior art did not teach or suggest the specific 'event correlation capabilities' required by the challenged claims.
patent instituted · Dec 23, 2024
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC
· IPR2025-00308
Twitch Interactive successfully challenged a patent claim in the PTAB, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board adopted Petitioner's narrow construction of 'real time,' favoring transmission upon availability without significant delay over strict human-perception timing.
patent instituted · Dec 23, 2024
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC
· IPR2025-00307
Twitch Interactive successfully secured institution of its § 103 IPR challenge against Razdog Holdings LLC's patent. The Board adopted the Petitioner's interpretation of 'real time,' allowing the case to proceed to trial on all claims.
