US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 132 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Oct 17, 2024
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00039
Motorola and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Multifold's dual‑screen handheld patent, arguing that the Aono prior‑art reference makes all challenged claims obvious. They request institution and cancellation of claims 1‑6, 11‑14, and 16.
patent · Oct 17, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-01465
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of Cerence’s ’750 patent covering low‑power voice activation. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and urges the Board not to deny institution.
patent instituted · Oct 17, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00061
Google and Motorola Mobility successfully had their patentability challenge instituted against Multifold International's '007 patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 based on prior art references Purcell and Nicholas, advancing the dispute to trial.
patent instituted · Oct 17, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00059
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge Multifold International's patent 9141135 on grounds of obviousness (103). The PTAB institution decision adopted a broader claim construction for 'displays information selectively across the annunciator window,' allowing the case to proceed to trial.
patent instituted · Oct 17, 2024
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00038
Motorola and Google successfully secured institution in this IPR against Multifold International regarding dual screen image capture technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, despite the Patent Owner's arguments for narrow claim construction.
patent denied · Oct 17, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-01465
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Google and Samsung's claims against Cerence. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation, which weighed heavily in favor of preventing duplicative proceedings.
patent final · Oct 17, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00060
The PTAB found all 14 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103 using prior art references Ogawa, Choi, and Yook. The Board adopted broad claim constructions for 'open application state' and 'display.'
patent Final Written Decision · Oct 17, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00059
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 12 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,141,135 B2 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board relied heavily on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on combinations of prior art references Yook, Bauer, and Lee. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the context of multi-screen user interfaces.
patent · Oct 16, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-01464
An email from the PTAB Director notifies Google and Cerence that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2024‑01464 and IPR2024‑01465, outlining a five‑page, five‑business‑day response limit and prohibiting new evidence.
patent · Oct 16, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-01464
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s denial of institution for IPR2024-01464 covering U.S. Patent 11,393,461. They argue the Board acted ultra vires and misapplied Fintiv factors, especially the Sotera stipulation and trial‑date uncertainty. The request seeks reversal and institution of the IPR.
patent denied · Oct 16, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-01464
Cerence Operating Company successfully defended the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its voice‑assistant patent, arguing that the Board acted within authority and that petitioners’ due‑process claims were unfounded.
patent denied · Oct 16, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-01464
The PTAB denied Google and co‑petitioners' request for Director Review of a denied institution decision concerning Cerence's in‑car voice‑assistant patent.
patent · Oct 16, 2024
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-01485
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Proxense’s biometric‑authentication patent, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references. The petition argues the Board should institute the review and reject discretionary denial arguments.
patent · Oct 16, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-01464
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Cerence’s voice‑command patent, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references and urging institution based on discretionary factors.
patent denied · Oct 16, 2024
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-01486
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Proxense's patent 8352730. The Board found that Apple failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly concerning the justification for filing multiple petitions.
patent denied · Oct 16, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-01464
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Google and Samsung against Cerence regarding voice command detection methods. The denial was based on the advanced stage of a parallel district court litigation, making institutional review inefficient.
patent · Oct 15, 2024
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
· IPR2025-00017
Arashi Vision (Insta360) has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of GoPro’s 10,529,052 patent on the ground of obviousness over three prior‑art references (Okubo, Sokeila, Eder). The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under FINTIV or § 325(d).
patent denied · Oct 15, 2024
Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn, LLC
· IPR2025-00044
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Innolux Corporation against Phenix Longhorn, LLC regarding LCD Gamma Correction technology. The denial was based primarily on Petitioner's failure to properly construct 'means-plus-function' limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
patent denied · Oct 15, 2024
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
· IPR2025-00017
GoPro successfully defended Patent 10,529,052 B2 when the PTAB denied Arashi Vision's IPR petition, citing advanced parallel ITC proceedings and overlapping claims.
patent denied · Oct 14, 2024
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
· IPR2025-00049
The PTAB denied Digital Global Systems' request for rehearing of its inter partes review institution denial. The Board affirmed its original interpretation of claim language and found the cited prior art insufficient to overturn the decision.
patent · Oct 14, 2024
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
· IPR2025-00049
Digital Global Systems petitions to invalidate DeepSig’s 10,581,469 patent covering machine‑learning‑based radio predistortion. The challenger asserts obviousness over earlier AI‑enabled predistortion disclosures (Jüschke, Holt, and Dzierwa) under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent denied · Oct 14, 2024
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
· IPR2025-00049
The PTAB denied Digital Global Systems' IPR against DeepSig Inc.'s patent, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
patent · Oct 12, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00006
Petition for post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 12152262 filed by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC against Halozyme, Inc.
patent denied · Oct 12, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00006
The USPTO Director denied Merck’s request for review of the Board’s institution decisions on several PGRs, including Halozyme’s patent 12,152,262. The denial leaves the Board’s original institution findings intact.
