US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 163 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Jan 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00898
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 10,951,271 patent covering multi‑antenna transmission, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art disclosures by Kim and Chen.
patent · Jan 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00894
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 2019 patent covering paging methods in LTE/5G networks, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art standards and patents. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Jan 5, 2025
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00948
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Helsinn’s U.S. Patent 9,943,515 covering netupitant‑based anti‑emetic regimens, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art combinations and lack secondary considerations.
patent · Jan 5, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
· IPR2025-00953
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of Hermes IP’s ’060 patent covering location‑based services for camera phones, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Jan 5, 2025
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00947
Azurity petitions to invalidate 39 claims of Helsinn’s anti‑emetic patent, arguing the claimed netupitant/palonosetron regimen is obvious over prior art and lacks any unexpected synergy.
patent · Jan 5, 2025
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00946
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 23 claims of Helsinn’s anti‑emetic patent covering netupitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone regimens. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and disputes the asserted unexpected synergy. No decision has been issued yet.
patent · Jan 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00905
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Apex Beam’s paging patent (U.S. 11,917,581). The petition alleges obviousness over Yeo, 3GPP TS 36.304, and Mallick references and argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
patent · Jan 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-00860
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s CDN patent, arguing anticipation by Newton-471 and obviousness over Dilley, Pai, and Wang. The petition stresses favorable institution factors and argues against discretionary denial.
patent · Jan 5, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
· IPR2025-00871
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging VB Assets' U.S. Patent 10,510,341, asserting that all 18 claims are obvious over prior‑art combinations of SmartKom/Kobsa and Barbara/Ross. The petition seeks institution of the review.
patent · Jan 5, 2025
Docker Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2025-00840
Docker has filed an IPR petition against Intellectual Ventures' U.S. Patent 8,332,844 covering a block‑level branching store file system, seeking cancellation of claims 1‑27 on the basis of obviousness over four prior‑art combinations.
patent · Jan 5, 2025
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00949
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Helsinn’s anti‑emetic patent (US 10,828,297) on the ground that the claims are obvious over standard chemotherapy anti‑emetic regimens. The petition argues the examiner’s reliance on alleged unexpected synergy is unsupported.
patent · Jan 5, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00934
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,159,210, asserting that all nine claims are obvious over the 802.11ax draft standard and two earlier patent publications. The petition relies on expert testimony and argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
patent instituted · Jan 5, 2025
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00949
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS successfully convinced the PTAB that multiple claims of Helsinn Healthcare's anti-emetic patent were unpatentable. The Board granted institution based on obviousness (103) over several prior art references, paving the way for a full trial.
patent instituted · Jan 5, 2025
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00948
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Helsinn Healthcare's '515 patent covering anti-emetic agents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness (103) and prior art, allowing the challenge to proceed.
patent instituted · Jan 5, 2025
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00947
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Helsinn Healthcare S.A.'s patent covering anti-emetic agents for oncology treatment. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that numerous claims would be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art references.
patent instituted · Jan 5, 2025
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00945
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Helsinn Healthcare S.A.'s anti-emetic patent (8623826). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on independent claim 19, allowing the challenge based on obviousness over prior art like MASCC and Hoffmann.
patent instituted · Jan 5, 2025
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00946
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. successfully secured institution of its IPR against Helsinn Healthcare S.A.'s patent (9186357) for anti-emetic agents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that several claims would be unpatentable over prior art, specifically regarding the combination of triple-drug CINV treatment and superior NK antagonists.
patent instituted · Jan 5, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00934
Samsung challenged Wilus's wireless patent claims based on obviousness in view of prior art standards and publications. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable, specifically citing combinations of Bharadwaj and Sun. This sets up a significant trial over HE WLAN technology.
patent instituted · Jan 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00905
Apple Inc. successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent, challenging 17 claims based on obviousness over prior art including Yeo and TS36.
patent instituted · Jan 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00898
Apple successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Apex Beam Technologies, challenging 20 claims related to massive MIMO transmission. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness over prior art references Kim and Chen.
patent instituted · Jan 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00894
Apple successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Apex Beam's patent 10,462,767, challenging all 20 claims based on obviousness over prior art standards like Yeo and TS36.
patent instituted · Jan 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-00860
Google LLC initiated an IPR against Sandpiper CDN, LLC's patent (10924573) covering Content Delivery Networks. The Board instituted the case, finding a reasonable likelihood that Google could prevail under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on obviousness over prior art combinations.
patent denied · Jan 5, 2025
Docker Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2025-00840
The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR2025-00840, favoring Intellectual Ventures II LLC's request for discretionary denial. The decision cited parallel district court and IPR proceedings as reasons to conserve resources.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 4, 2025
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00822
Shenzhen FBTech and LiTime settled their IPR against LithiumHub's battery‑technology patent before trial, prompting the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
