US PTAB IP Litigation

8,574 annotated decisions

8,574

Decisions

1

IP Types

0

Courts

Browse by type: patent 8,574

Page 173 of 358 · 8,574 total

patent terminated or settled

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC

· IPR2024-00374

Samsung and Advanced Coding Technologies settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,090,025, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.

Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC

· IPR2024-00441

The USPTO Director denied Comcast's request for a Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00441 concerning Entropic Communications' patent 8,792,008.

patent terminated or settled

Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC

· IPR2024-00381

Datavant and Vigilytics jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2024‑00381 concerning patent 10,886,012. The PTAB granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.

Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00383

EndyMed Medical and Serendia have filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, separating it from the patent record.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2024-00370

Micron’s petition to invalidate Netlist’s memory‑module patent was denied by the PTAB because the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the five challenged claims.

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.

· IPR2026-00270

Sarepta filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Genzyme’s ’313 AAV detection patent. The petition asserts that all 27 claims are obvious in view of earlier publications on LC‑MS and RP‑HPLC analysis of viral proteins. No secondary considerations are believed to overcome the obviousness argument.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.--

· IPR2026-00336

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Whirlpool's 2025 dishwasher patent (US 12,232,681), seeking to invalidate claims 14‑16 and 19 as obvious over prior‑art references Carr, Mailander, and Ochoa.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.AQ Corporation

· IPR2026-00234

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corporation’s U.S. Patent 11,728,564 covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition asserts that all 22 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the claims.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.AQ Corporation

· IPR2026-00234

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corp's ’564 smartphone antenna patent, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering dual‑side coil layouts, NFC, MST and wireless charging. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑20 under 35 U.S.C. §311.

Pinterest, Inc. v.--

· IPR2026-00334

Pinterest has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of OpenTV’s ’703 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Orr, Hsu, Lim, and Hervey.

Google LLC v.--

· IPR2026-00271

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Headwater Research’s ’564 patent covering a mobile device with secure MMS messaging. The petition relies on obviousness arguments combining TS‑23.140, Rakic and several other references.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--

· IPR2026-00320

Cisco Systems has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,780,887, asserting that its ten claims are obvious over the Pankratov prior‑art reference. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.

Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC

· IPR2026-00326

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 13 claims of Qomplx’s 2025 patent on graph‑based cyber‑attack detection, asserting obviousness over two earlier publications. The petition argues that each claim element is fully disclosed in Brezinski and Crabtree, and no evidence of non‑obviousness is offered.

Vivint LLC v.Zinser, Duke

· IPR2026-00300

Vivint LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 21‑47 of U.S. Patent 7,583,191, asserting they are obvious over the Schranz prior‑art reference.

Google LLC v.--

· IPR2026-00304

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑16 of U.S. Patent 8,438,120, which covers hyper‑parameter optimization for machine‑learning classifiers. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness, and asks the PTAB to institute the trial.

Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC

· IPR2026-00332

Apple has filed an IPR petition targeting claim 55 of IngenioSpec’s ’355 patent covering wearable audio devices. The petition asserts the claim is obvious over prior‑art hearing‑aid patents and a textbook, and asks the Board to institute review and cancel the claim.

Dolby Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS et al.

· IPR2026-00252

Dolby Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 9,185,268, which covers methods for color correcting display content. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute the review.

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC

· IPR2026-00248

Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of COGMEDIA’s ’141 Patent, asserting that the claimed social‑card UI features were obvious over earlier patents such as McQueen and Forsyth.

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC

· IPR2026-00247

Meta Platforms has filed a petition to invalidate Cogmedia’s ’562 patent covering social‑card interfaces, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of earlier patents. The petition challenges 14 claims and seeks institution of the IPR.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.AQ Corporation

· IPR2026-00232

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corp’s U.S. Patent 11,495,875 covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious in view of multiple prior‑art references teaching dual‑sided coil layouts, via connections, and parallel circuitry.

Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.

· IPR2026-00242

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of WeCrevention’s DRAM patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness based on multiple prior‑art references that disclose low‑voltage operation and embedded display‑port use.

Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.

· IPR2026-00305

Uber and its freight subsidiary have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Carma Technology’s 7,840,427 patent covering shared‑transport routing. The petition relies on the Olmi UK patent application as both anticipatory and obvious prior art for the asserted claims.

Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.

· IPR2026-00241

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging WeCrevention’s DRAM patent (U.S. 10,998,017), asserting that claims 1‑2 are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art DRAM disclosures and that the input/output unit is a §112(f) means‑plus‑function term.

Microsoft Corporation v.ToutVirtual, Inc.

· IPR2026-00297

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of ToutVirtual’s ‘667 patent covering virtual system management, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

1 •••172 173 174•••358