US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 111 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Dec 17, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00321
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has petitioned an IPR against Stratasys' 3‑D‑printing patent covering purge‑tower printing, asserting obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Dec 17, 2024
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00306
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging VideoLabs' U.S. Patent 8,291,236 covering conditional‑access and DRM bridging. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art patents and seeks institution of the review.
patent · Dec 17, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
· IPR2025-00024
Google, Samsung and others have filed an IPR petition challenging Truesight’s ’300 patent covering on‑screen video chapter navigation. The petition asserts that prior‑art references Nishikawa, Angiolillo, Vahtola and Ackley render all 20 claims obvious. The Board is asked to institute review and cancel the claims.
patent instituted · Dec 17, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00321
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR petition challenging Patent No. 9,421,713 B2 based on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in additive manufacturing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by prior art (Boyer).
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Dec 17, 2024
LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00300
VIZIO successfully convinced the PTAB that MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.'s claims related to VOD user interfaces were obvious over prior art references. The Board found that combining existing concepts from sources like TechnoBuffalo and Kim provided sufficient motivation for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
patent · Dec 14, 2024
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
· IPR2025-00315
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent (U.S. 10,805,687) on obviousness grounds, citing a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition argues no prior petition exists and includes a Fintiv stipulation to limit further challenges.
patent · Dec 14, 2024
Lam Research Corp. v.Inpria Corporation
· IPR2025-00309
Lam Research has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Inpria's EUV lithography patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness issues. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent instituted · Dec 13, 2024
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
· IPR2025-00289
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,865,291 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. All challenged claims (1‑8, 12‑19) are now subject to trial.
patent instituted · Dec 13, 2024
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
· IPR2025-00289
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on all nine challenged claims.
patent · Dec 13, 2024
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00298
Nutanix filed a request for director review, urging the PTAB to deny Tessell’s IPR on grounds of unfair dealing, settled expectations, and prior art already examined. The petition argues that the inventors are attempting to profit twice from the same invention.
patent · Dec 13, 2024
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00298
Petitioner Tessell, Inc. filed an authorized response opposing Nutanix, Inc.’s request to reverse the PTAB’s institution of IPR2025-00298. The brief argues no unfair dealing, cites settled expectations for early‑filed patents, and asserts that discretionary denial under §325(d) is improper.
patent · Dec 13, 2024
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00298
Tessell, Inc. seeks rehearing of the Director’s decision to deny institution of its IPR against Nutanix, arguing the Director misapplied assignor estoppel contrary to 35 U.S.C. §311(a) and Federal Circuit precedent. The petition asks the Board to reverse the denial and reinstate the institution order.
patent denied · Dec 13, 2024
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00298
Nutanix successfully defended the Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Tessell, arguing that the Director’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) is unbounded and that no right to institution exists. The Board denied Tessell’s request for rehearing.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Dec 13, 2024
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
· IPR2025-00289
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable. Petitioner Imperative Care proved anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller and Garrison, with the Board emphasizing that the claimed filament must be flexible.
patent instituted · Dec 13, 2024
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
· IPR2025-00289
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success. All challenged claims (1‑7, 9‑10, 15‑18, 20‑24) are now under review.
patent instituted · Dec 13, 2024
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
· IPR2025-00289
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim.
patent denied · Dec 13, 2024
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
· IPR2025-00289
The PTAB denied Imperative Care’s petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 11,744,691, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board concluded the cited prior art did not disclose the required negative‑pressure pump configuration.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 13, 2024
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
· IPR2025-00263
Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools entered into a settlement that resolves their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,241,776. Both parties jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, citing Board policy favoring settlement and the lack of a merits decision.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 13, 2024
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
· IPR2025-00261
Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 11,034,007 and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00261, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c).
patent · Dec 13, 2024
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00298
Tessell, Inc. submitted an email to the PTAB Director requesting a rehearing after the Director Review denied institution of its IPR against Nutanix, Inc.
patent denied · Dec 13, 2024
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00298
The PTAB denied Tessell, Inc.'s petition for rehearing of the Director Review order that had vacated the institution of an IPR against Nutanix, Inc.'s patent 11,860,818. The decision leaves the prior order in place and no claims were examined.
patent · Dec 13, 2024
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00298
The PTAB notified the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-00298. The petitioner is limited to a five‑page response filed within five business days, and no new evidence may be introduced.
patent denied · Dec 13, 2024
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2025-00207
Arm’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial of institution was rejected. The Board found Arm lacked a concrete interest and the prior art cited was cumulative, supporting the denial.
patent · Dec 13, 2024
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2025-00207
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,984,228 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to MediaTek, leaving the proceeding active only for Arm Ltd.
