US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 13 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Nov 9, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01257
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant Location Technologies' ’030 patent covering mobile‑device presence monitoring. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all claims.
patent · Nov 9, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01259
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant’s ’720 patent covering location‑based tariffs and services, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Nov 9, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01256
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 14 claims of Avant’s ’040 patent covering mobile‑station presence monitoring, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Nov 8, 2025
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
· IPR2025-01391
Haemonetics seeks Director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR filed by Terumo BCT over its plasma‑apheresis patent. The request hinges on alleged inconsistent claim‑construction positions and procedural violations.
patent instituted · Nov 8, 2025
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
· IPR2025-01391
Terumo BCT submits an authorized response defending the institution of its IPR against Haemonetics’ request to vacate it. The petitioner argues the term “controller” is undisputed and that prior‑art references disclose the claimed device, rendering the Patent Owner’s objections meritless.
patent · Nov 8, 2025
Cruzr Saddles LLC v.Tethrd LLC
· IPR2025-01407
Cruzr Saddles LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tethrd's saddle‑hunting rope‑splice patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious based on publicly available YouTube videos and forum posts. The petition also challenges the patent’s priority date, arguing a break in continuity.
patent · Nov 8, 2025
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
· IPR2025-01391
Terumo BCT petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details claim‑by‑claim comparisons to Takagi, Lavender, Min and others.
patent · Nov 8, 2025
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01408
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Telcom Ventures' 9,832,708 patent covering NFC‑based smartphone payments, asserting obviousness over Barnett, Byrne, and White references.
patent denied · Nov 8, 2025
Cruzr Saddles LLC v.Tethrd LLC
· IPR2025-01407
The Board denied institution of the IPR, finding that Cruzr Saddles LLC failed to meet the particularity requirements when challenging Tethrd LLC's patent using online video evidence.
patent instituted · Nov 8, 2025
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
· IPR2025-01391
The USPTO Office granted institution for IPR2025-01391 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
patent · Nov 7, 2025
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01278
Google seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on a video‑encoding patent. The Patent Owner counters that the Director’s discretion is unreviewable and that Google’s statutory arguments are unfounded.
patent · Nov 7, 2025
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01278
Google seeks Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ ’448 patent, alleging statutory and procedural violations. The petition highlights failures to meet hearing requirements, to provide a merits determination, and to follow APA rules.
patent denied · Nov 7, 2025
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01277
The USPTO denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution denial in three IPRs involving Advanced Coding Technologies' patents. The order confirms the original institution decisions remain in effect.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 7, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
· IPR2025-01189
Samsung Electronics and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01189 concerning patent 11,368,911. The Board granted the motion and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
patent · Nov 7, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
· IPR2025-01189
Samsung and Hannibal IP have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01189 after reaching a settlement covering multiple patents. The motion cites lack of a final written decision and the benefits of conserving Board resources.
patent · Nov 7, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
· IPR2025-01188
Hannibal IP LLC requests the PTAB Director deny Samsung's IPR on its 5G LBT patent, arguing the challenge is weak, relies on flawed expert testimony, and that the prior art mirrors prosecution disclosures. Samsung’s prior knowledge and the imminent district‑court trial further support denial.
patent · Nov 7, 2025
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01228
Generac and co‑petitioners filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the patent file, limiting disclosure under 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
patent · Nov 7, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
· IPR2025-01188
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01188, citing their settlement agreement and requesting it be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The Board is asked to end the proceeding and seal the settlement details.
patent · Nov 7, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
· IPR2025-01189
Hannibal IP seeks to block Samsung’s IPR over its 5G power‑saving patent, arguing the challenge is weak, relies on expert testimony, and that Samsung had prior notice of the patent. The request cites timing of a parallel trial and unlikely stay to argue for discretionary denial of institution.
patent · Nov 7, 2025
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01228
Generac Power Systems has filed an IPR petition challenging Champion Power’s U.S. Patent 11,905,896 covering dual‑fuel generator selector switches. The petition asserts that 38 claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references and disputes the patent owner’s claim constructions. Petitioners seek cancellation of all challenged claims.
patent · Nov 7, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
· IPR2025-01188
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Hannibal IP’s U.S. Patent 11,272,535 covering LBT failure detection in 5G UE. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple pre‑grant publications and 3GPP standards. The Board is asked to institute the review and invalidate the claims.
patent · Nov 7, 2025
SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLight v.Pathway IP LLC
· IPR2025-01231
ShutterLight petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 13 claims of Pathway IP’s 7,841,729 webcam illuminator patent, asserting obviousness over eight prior‑art references.
patent · Nov 7, 2025
Pinterest, Inc. v.OpenTV, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01184
Pinterest has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate OpenTV’s ’169 Patent claims covering interactive‑TV rendering methods, citing obviousness over five prior‑art references.
patent instituted · Nov 7, 2025
Spotify AB et al. v.Tijerino, Manuel
· IPR2025-01280
Spotify USA Inc. successfully challenged 17 claims of the '9146925 patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB preliminarily found that the combination of prior art references—Laut, Kincaid, and Bongiovi—renders the claimed digital jukebox system obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.
