US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 125 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Nov 14, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00118
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of Yangtze Memory’s ESD bus patent, arguing obviousness over Yoshinaga, Saint, and Haralabidis and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
patent · Nov 14, 2024
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
· IPR2025-00094
Innoscience has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Infineon’s 8,264,003 GaN cascode patent, arguing that each claim is obvious over known prior‑art combinations. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is improper.
patent instituted · Nov 14, 2024
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
· PGR2025-00002
The PTAB instituted PGR on claims 1-78 of the '952 patent after reviewing multiple grounds, including eligibility (§ 101), obviousness (§ 103), and written description/enablement (§ 112). The Board found a likelihood of success for Petitioner despite arguments from Patent Owner regarding prior art limitations.
patent instituted · Nov 14, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00118
Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent, securing institution on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The Board found sufficient evidence that combinations of prior art references would render the claims unpatentable.
patent · Nov 12, 2024
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
· IPR2025-00268
Sportradar AG petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against SportsCastr's U.S. Patent 10,805,687 covering real‑time sports video and data streaming, arguing the claims are obvious over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑9 and argues against discretionary denial.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 11, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00071
Roku and VideoLabs settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before any claims were instituted.
patent · Nov 11, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00071
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 11, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00071
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent · Nov 11, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00071
Roku has filed a petition to institute IPR on VideoLabs' ’559 patent covering content‑flow control. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Kloba and Robbin and asserts no discretionary denial grounds.
patent instituted · Nov 10, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00034
Micron submits an authorized response defending the PTAB's institution decision for its memory‑chip etching patent, arguing the Board properly evaluated the Nakajima, Tessariol, and Mushiga references. The Patent Owner's objections are portrayed as mischaracterizations of the prior art.
patent · Nov 10, 2024
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
· IPR2025-00031
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR over the ’435 hydraulic fracturing patent, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits, and termination is sought for judicial economy.
patent · Nov 10, 2024
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
· IPR2025-00031
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint request to keep their settlement confidential and to terminate IPR2025‑00031 concerning a hydraulic fracturing patent.
patent · Nov 10, 2024
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
· IPR2025-00031
U.S. Well Services seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering claims 1‑19 of its oilfield‑services patent, arguing the Board misapplied the Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors after a district court denied a stay.
patent denied · Nov 10, 2024
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
· IPR2025-00031
U.S. Well Services sought a Director Review of the PTAB institution decisions, alleging the petitioners violated a Sotera stipulation. The Director denied the request, leaving the IPRs to proceed to final written decisions.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 10, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
· IPR2025-00009
Lenovo and Ericsson have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,972,654 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties seek dismissal under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 10, 2024
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
· IPR2025-00031
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
patent denied · Nov 10, 2024
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
· IPR2025-00031
The USPTO denied Liberty Energy's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00031, leaving the IPR proceeding intact.
patent · Nov 10, 2024
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
· IPR2025-00031
Court decision.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 10, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
· IPR2025-00009
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,972,654 B2 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement documents as confidential.
patent · Nov 10, 2024
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
· IPR2025-00031
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 10,655,435, alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art pump‑control references. The petition argues the case meets the Fintiv institutional factors and requests the Board to institute the review.
patent denied · Nov 10, 2024
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
· PGR2025-00001
The PTAB denied Catalyst OrthoScience's Post-Grant Review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent (12,023,254). The denial was based on the advanced stage and significant overlap with co-pending district court litigation.
patent denied · Nov 10, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00035
Micron Technology's IPR challenge against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D memory structures was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Micron failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its obviousness grounds over prior art combinations.
patent instituted · Nov 10, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00034
Micron Technology successfully petitioned to challenge key claims in a semiconductor memory patent held by Yangtze Memory Technologies, leading to institution at the PTAB. The Board focused on obviousness (103) over Nakajima, balancing technical merits with parallel litigation factors.
patent denied · Nov 10, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00034
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for Micron against Yangtze Memory Technologies because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on any remaining claims after several key claims were disclaimed.
