US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 128 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Oct 30, 2024
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
· IPR2025-00104
LifeScan, Senseonics and Ascensia have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Cellspin Soft’s 8,904,030 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several Bluetooth‑related prior arts and lack priority. The petition also cites discretionary factors favoring institution.
patent · Oct 30, 2024
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
· IPR2025-00103
LifeScan and co‑petitioners seek IPR of Cellspin Soft’s 9,900,766 patent, asserting that claims 1‑15 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack valid priority. They also highlight discretionary factors favoring institution.
patent instituted · Oct 30, 2024
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
· IPR2025-00104
LifeScan successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cellspin Soft's patent, asserting that the claimed wireless data transmission methods are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, moving the dispute into active review proceedings.
patent instituted · Oct 30, 2024
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
· IPR2025-00103
LifeScan and co-petitioners successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial on all 15 claims of patent 9900766 against Cellspin Soft, Inc. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claimed multimedia content distribution methods were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Singh906, Kahn, and Bluetooth specifications.
patent · Oct 29, 2024
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00111
BabyBjörn has filed an IPR petition challenging The Ergo Baby Carrier’s adjustable child‑carrier patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing indefiniteness of a key claim term.
patent · Oct 29, 2024
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00110
BabyBjörn has filed an IPR petition challenging The Ergo Baby Carrier’s 2023 adjustable child carrier patent, asserting that all 24 claims are anticipated or obvious over existing baby‑carrier manuals and patents.
patent denied · Oct 29, 2024
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00110
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge against The Ergo Baby Carrier's patent on adjustable baby carriers. Petitioner failed to meet its burden of persuasion, specifically regarding the public accessibility of key prior art and demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
patent · Oct 28, 2024
Cipla Limited v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
· IPR2025-00033
Cipla has filed an IPR petition challenging Gilead’s 2023 ‘802 patent covering a bictegravir/TAF/FTC single‑tablet HIV regimen, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent denied · Oct 28, 2024
Cipla Limited v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
· IPR2025-00033
The PTAB denied Cipla Limited's IPR petition against Gilead Sciences regarding patent 11,744,802, citing the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and lack of compelling merits.
patent · Oct 25, 2024
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
· IPR2024-01487
Essity’s ‘138 patent covering a layered fluid‑flow control structure in diapers was challenged by First Quality. The Patent Owner’s response argues that the cited prior art does not meet the claim limitations, teaches away, and that the Petitioners’ expert lacks proper qualifications. The Board had already instituted the IPR.
patent · Oct 25, 2024
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
· IPR2024-01487
First Quality Enterprises has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Essity's 9,308,138 absorbent article patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Oct 25, 2024
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
· IPR2025-00012
Charter Communications petitions the PTAB to invalidate Adaptive Spectrum’s ’398 patent covering Wi‑Fi performance optimization, asserting that all 25 claims are obvious over prior art (Diener and Shaffer). The petition also argues against discretionary denial under § 314(a).
patent denied · Oct 25, 2024
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
· IPR2025-00012
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' request to institute IPR against Adaptive Spectrum regarding patent 10848398. The denial was based on the proximity of a related district court trial date and the perceived lack of strong merits.
patent instituted · Oct 25, 2024
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
· IPR2024-01487
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against Essity Hygiene and Health AB's absorbent article patent (9308138). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over prior art, including Nakazawa.
patent · Oct 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-00002
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’595 patent succeeded. All 24 claims were found obvious over prior‑art references Hazelzet, Buchmann and, for certain claims, Kim, rendering the patent unpatentable.
patent · Oct 24, 2024
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
· IPR2025-00063
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have entered settlement agreements with Woodbury Wireless and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,211,895. The motion relies on statutory authority allowing termination when parties agree to settle.
patent · Oct 24, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00057
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s claim construction of its remote desktop patent (U.S. 8,934,887). The petition argues the Board misread Figure 2, applied a conjunctive construction contrary to the specification, and ignored the Acting Director’s guidance. Amazon seeks reversal of the institution denial to allow the IPR to proceed.
patent · Oct 24, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00057
Amazon seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging B.S.D. Crown’s remote‑desktop patent. The petitioner contends the Board abused discretion by rejecting a preliminary reply on claim construction and misreading the patent’s scope.
patent instituted · Oct 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-00002
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’218 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of success on all 22 claims, based on obviousness over Hazelzet combined with JEDEC, Buchmann, and Kim.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 24, 2024
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
· IPR2025-00063
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have settled their IPR dispute with Woodbury Wireless over U.S. Patent 10,211,895, filing the settlement as confidential and moving to terminate the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 24, 2024
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
· IPR2025-00063
Nokia, AT&T, and T‑Mobile jointly moved to terminate an IPR against Woodbury Wireless's patent 10,211,895. The PTAB granted the motion, sealing the settlement agreements and ending the proceeding before trial.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-00002
Samsung successfully challenged Netlist’s 8,489,837 patent in an IPR, leading the PTAB to find all five asserted claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art. The Board rejected the patent owner’s constructions and upheld Samsung’s obviousness arguments.
patent · Oct 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-00002
Netlist seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its memory‑controller patent, arguing a faulty claim construction and insufficient particularity in Samsung’s grounds.
patent instituted · Oct 24, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-00002
Samsung filed an authorized response defending the PTAB's institution of an IPR against Netlist over a memory‑module signaling patent. The brief argues the Board correctly construed the claim language and that the six grounds are obvious over Hazelzet. Netlist's challenges on waste of resources and new arguments are rejected.
