US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 158 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00278
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,343,114, which covers a mercury‑removal method for coal‑fired power plants. The petition argues the claims are obvious over earlier conference papers and patents, and that the patent lacks priority support for its bromine‑related limitations.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
· IPR2025-00336
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Sinotechnix’s 7,901,113 LED lens patent, asserting that prior art references Odawara, Sommers, and West anticipate or render the claims obvious.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00274
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliated utilities have filed a petition for inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent 10,343,114, which claims mercury‑removal methods for coal‑fired power plants. The petition asserts obviousness over several prior‑art references and argues the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d). The case is pending Board decision.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Sterling Computers Corporation
· IPR2025-00270
Microsoft petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Sterling's 911 patent covering email compliance features, arguing the claims are obvious over Rohall, Schiavone, and Gomes. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).
patent · Jan 17, 2025
CSPC Pharmaceutical Group Limited et al. v.Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-00505
CSPC Pharmaceutical Group has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of Ipsen’s U.S. Patent 11,344,552 covering a liposomal irinotecan regimen for metastatic pancreatic cancer, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
· IPR2025-00502
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of KPN’s ’669 patent, asserting obviousness over Widegren, Widegren‑793, ETSI TS 183 063 and Astrom, and urging the Board not to deny institution.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
· IPR2025-00491
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Barco’s video‑conferencing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and examiner error.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-00476
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8, 10, and 12 of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 9,547,226, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Kurosaki, Miyamae, and Kitano references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2025-00467
WebGroup Czech Republic petitions the PTAB to invalidate DISH's adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references. The Board is asked to institute the IPR.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2025-00469
Webgroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of DISH Technologies' multi‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
· IPR2025-00466
Padagis seeks inter partes review of Neurelis’s 11,793,786 patent covering intranasal benzodiazepine solutions, arguing that all 27 claims are obvious over prior art and that the patent owner is estopped from contesting issues already decided in a prior IPR.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2025-00437
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ optical isolator array patent, arguing anticipation by a Chinese patent and obviousness over that patent combined with a U.S. reference. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2025-00436
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ 10,313,024 optical‑module patent, asserting anticipation by two prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute review despite discretionary denial arguments.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2025-00434
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 of Applied Optoelectronics’ 10,379,301 patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated by prior‑art references Shen and Soldano. The petition stresses that these references were not used during prosecution and requests the Board to institute review.
patent instituted · Jan 17, 2025
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
· PGR2025-00028
The PTAB instituted trial on grounds of eligibility (101), anticipation (102), and obviousness (103) for all 20 claims related to mobile payment processing. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a likelihood of unpatentability, despite some claim limitations being construed favorably to the Patent Owner.
patent instituted · Jan 17, 2025
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
· PGR2025-00027
The PTAB granted institution for Post-Grant Review on all 20 claims of the '920 patent covering mobile payment systems, facing challenges under § 101 (eligibility) and § 103 (obviousness). The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with arguments regarding abstract ideas and inventive concepts.
patent denied · Jan 17, 2025
Therabody, Inc. v.DataFeel, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00026
Therabody's Post-Grant Review petition against DataFeel was denied by the PTAB after failing to demonstrate a likelihood of unpatentability for claim 4. The Board rejected grounds based on obviousness (103) and lack of enablement/written description (112).
patent instituted · Jan 17, 2025
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00017
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent on enablement and obviousness grounds in a PTAB decision. The Board found that the patent documents supported a broad definition of modified PH20 polypeptides, while noting the petitioner had established a likelihood of prevailing on enablement but failed to prove obviousness.
patent instituted · Jan 17, 2025
CSPC Pharmaceutical Group Limited et al. v.Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-00505
The PTAB institution decision in this oncology IPR upheld the patent claims against numerous prior art references related to FOLFIRINOX and nanoliposomal irinotecan. The Board adopted a specific claim construction defining 'treatment' as requiring more than a de minimis therapeutic benefit for the patient.
patent instituted · Jan 17, 2025
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
· IPR2025-00491
Yealink successfully petitioned against Barco N.V.'s patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted trial on all 18 claims based on the combination of Beel and Christison prior art references.
patent instituted · Jan 17, 2025
Google LLC v.BrodTi Inc.
· IPR2025-00472
Google LLC successfully secured the institution of its IPR against BrodTi Inc.'s patent (11416898), challenging claims 1-20. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art, including Nicholas and Laidlaw.
patent instituted · Jan 17, 2025
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
· IPR2025-00466
Padagis US LLC successfully challenged Neurelis, Inc.'s patent claims covering nasal drug delivery formulations. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, leading to the institution of the IPR.
patent instituted · Jan 17, 2025
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
· IPR2025-00465
Padagis US LLC successfully challenged claims 1-18 of Neurelis, Inc.'s patent under grounds of obviousness (103) and lack of written description (102). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the invention is unpatentable, based on combining prior art references Gwozdz and Meezan.
patent instituted · Jan 17, 2025
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
· IPR2025-00464
Padagis US LLC successfully petitioned to challenge Neurelis, Inc.'s nasal drug formulations patent (8895546) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The PTAB institution decision allows Padagis to proceed with the unpatentability arguments against all 22 claims.
