US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 12 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent denied · Dec 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00999
The USPTO denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three related IPRs, leaving the original institution denials in place.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 5, 2025
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00992
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
patent · Dec 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00991
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑10 of U.S. Patent 8,090,025, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art video‑coding references. The petition relies on Mualla, Shirani, Saito, Stockhammer, and Shimizu to demonstrate lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Dec 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01000
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 11 claims of Advanced Coding Technologies' video‑coding patent, asserting obviousness over a set of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Dec 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00999
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of U.S. Patent 9,986,303, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier scalable video‑coding disclosures (Demircin, Chen, Karczewicz). The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that the prior art was not considered during prosecution.
patent · Dec 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00998
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of U.S. Patent 8,090,025, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art video‑coding references. The petition seeks institution based on General Plastic and Fintiv factors.
patent · Dec 5, 2025
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00992
Mercedes-Benz seeks to invalidate all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 11,352,020, alleging they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Dec 5, 2025
L'Oreal USA, Inc. v.BRIGHTEX BIO-PHOTONICS, LLC
· IPR2025-00971
L'Oreal seeks IPR on Brightex’s 2017 cosmetic‑recommendation patent, arguing all 15 claims are obvious over Bandic, Rubinstenn103 and Rubinstenn300 references.
patent · Dec 4, 2025
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00816
ClearCorrect seeks an IPR of Align’s 11,369,456 patent covering clear‑aligner treatment‑plan software. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute review and invalidate claims 1‑19.
patent · Dec 4, 2025
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00815
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of Align Technology’s orthodontic treatment‑planning patent (US 10,524,879), alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the round‑tripping collision‑avoidance technique is well‑known.
patent · Dec 4, 2025
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00814
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Align Technology’s orthodontic treatment‑planning patent, arguing the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references.
patent instituted · Dec 4, 2025
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00816
ClearCorrect Operating challenged Align Technology's dental treatment planning patent (11,369,456 B2) before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Ground 1, based on obviousness over Chishti-511, Chishti-876, and Sachdeva.
patent denied · Dec 4, 2025
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00815
ClearCorrect Operating lost its IPR challenge against Align Technology's '879 patent in a PTAB decision focused on obviousness. The Board rejected the petitioner’s argument that combining prior art references would render the claims obvious, upholding the validity of the challenged technology in orthodontics.
patent denied · Dec 4, 2025
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00814
ClearCorrect Operating lost its IPR challenge against Align Technology regarding dental treatment planning technology. The PTAB ruled that the claimed obviousness over prior art was not demonstrated, upholding the validity of the patent claims.
patent · Dec 3, 2025
Transcend Information Inc. v.Truesight Communications LLC
· IPR2025-00723
Transcend Information has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Truesight Communications' 2015 patent on secure SD‑card content transfer, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution despite related Texas litigation.
patent · Dec 2, 2025
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00500
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Micron’s 10,475,737 flash‑memory patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations analysis and violated APA due‑process rules.
patent · Dec 2, 2025
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00500
Micron Technology opposes Yangtze Memory’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on Micron’s 3D NAND patent. The response argues the petitioner’s claims of no parallel litigation and examiner error are unsupported and that procedural challenges were waived.
patent denied · Dec 2, 2025
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00500
The USPTO Director denied Yangtze Memory's request for Director Review of the PTAB's denial of institution in four IPRs, including the case involving Micron's patent 10,475,737.
patent · Dec 2, 2025
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00486
AMD and Pensando’s IPR petition targeting XtreamEdge’s modular data‑processing patent is met with a robust preliminary response arguing that the cited prior art does not disclose key claim limitations, prompting a request for discretionary denial of institution.
patent · Dec 2, 2025
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00486
The USPTO has initiated a Director review of three AMD‑related IPRs after the Patent Owner claimed the Petitioners breached a Sotera stipulation by litigating the same invalidity arguments in district court. The proceedings are stayed pending briefing and a forthcoming opinion.
patent denied · Dec 2, 2025
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00486
AMD and its co‑petitioner withdrew their request for rehearing in IPR2025‑00486. The Board granted the motion, ending the rehearing request and returning the case to the Board for further action.
patent · Dec 2, 2025
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00486
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging XtreamEdge’s ’753 patent covering blade‑server packet identifiers and memory arrangements, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Dec 2, 2025
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00500
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent instituted · Dec 2, 2025
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00486
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Pensando Systems successfully convinced the PTAB that XtreamEdge's network testing claims are likely obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board issued an institution decision, moving the dispute toward trial on grounds of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
