US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 173 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent instituted · Dec 20, 2024
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
· IPR2025-00254
Microsoft Corporation et al. successfully challenged the patentability of X1 Discovery's search indexing claims before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, leading to institution.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Dec 20, 2024
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2025-00348
The PTAB found that the patent claims were largely obvious over prior art references Leaning and Gamble in the field of Adaptive Bitrate Streaming. Specifically, Claims 2 and 9 were deemed obvious when combining Leaning with Gamble's TCP protocols.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Dec 20, 2024
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2025-00347
The PTAB found that all 16 claims of the patent are unpatentable over prior art references, Leaning and Gamble. The Board concluded that the combination of references rendered specific claims obvious, while other claims were anticipated by Leaning alone.
patent all challenged claims upheld · Dec 20, 2024
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
· IPR2025-00297
The PTAB upheld all claims of the patent in this final written decision after rejecting multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The Board adopted specific claim constructions for 'mirror-mimicking' and 'varying rate,' finding the petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Dec 20, 2024
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
· IPR2025-00296
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that all 18 challenged claims of EyesMatch Ltd.'s patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted a specific construction for 'mirror tracking mode,' which was central to finding obviousness across multiple grounds.
patent denied · Dec 19, 2024
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
· IPR2025-00253
The PTAB denied X1 Discovery’s request for an extension to file Director Review briefs in three IPRs against Microsoft, finding no good cause. The Board emphasized that prior case law does not excuse delayed filings.
patent · Dec 19, 2024
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00223
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of three IPRs after the patent owner claimed the petitioners breached a Sotera stipulation by litigating overlapping invalidity arguments in district court. The proceedings are stayed pending a decision on a motion to vacate the institution.
patent · Dec 19, 2024
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00223
AMD and Pensando have filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR on their FPGA patent. They contend that recent court delays and the cancellation of a Markman hearing render the Board's discretionary denial inappropriate.
patent · Dec 19, 2024
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00223
The USPTO granted AMD and Pensando’s request for rehearing, vacated the earlier discretionary denial of institution, and sent the IPR back to the Board for a standard institution decision.
patent · Dec 19, 2024
KLIPSTA PTY LTD v.Albanese, Lindsay
· IPR2025-00346
Klipsta PTY LTD petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,413,047, asserting that the hat‑holding system is fully anticipated or obvious over numerous international prior‑art references.
patent · Dec 19, 2024
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
· IPR2025-00253
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all ten claims of X1 Discovery’s 2008 ‘Methods and Systems for Search Indexing’ patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references such as Lotus Notes, Entourage, and academic works.
patent · Dec 19, 2024
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00223
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,985,943, which covers FPGA‑based programmable logic devices for data‑flow processing in servers. The petition asserts obviousness over six prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial.
patent instituted · Dec 19, 2024
KLIPSTA PTY LTD v.Albanese, Lindsay
· IPR2025-00346
The PTAB instituted IPR proceedings against U.S. Patent No. 10,413,047 for a hat holder system. The Board found that the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds, including anticipation by KR ’458.
patent instituted · Dec 19, 2024
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
· IPR2025-00253
Microsoft Corporation successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against X1 Discovery's patent on Information Retrieval/Search Indexing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing under § 103, specifically regarding the combination of prior art references (Wilcox, Londergan, Raskin, Wu).
patent instituted · Dec 19, 2024
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00223
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against XtreamEdge regarding a PLD patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims. The Board found that the combination of prior art references Seshadri and Biederman provided sufficient grounds for challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent · Dec 18, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00311
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks PTAB institution of an IPR against Stratasys’s 3D‑printer patent, arguing the Board properly weighed Fintiv factors and that broad stipulations prevent duplicate litigation. The Patent Owner contests, but the petitioner emphasizes efficiency and fairness.
patent denied · Dec 18, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00311
The USPTO Director denied petitions to review institution decisions in three IPRs involving Stratasys's 3D‑printing patent, leaving the institution rulings intact.
patent denied · Dec 18, 2024
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00322
Nutanix filed a response defending the PTAB Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Tessell. The owner contends the Director properly exercised discretion, that assignor estoppel does not apply, and that no right to institution exists.
patent · Dec 18, 2024
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00322
Tessell, Inc. petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPR against Nutanix, arguing the Director misapplied assignor estoppel under 35 U.S.C. §314(a). The brief cites Federal Circuit precedent that assignor estoppel cannot block IPRs.
patent · Dec 18, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00311
Stratasys seeks Director review to overturn a PTAB decision that instituted an IPR challenging 16 claims of its 3D‑printing patent. The owner argues the Panel misapplied the Fintiv factors and over‑relied on stipulations, violating recent USPTO guidance.
patent · Dec 18, 2024
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00322
Tessell, Inc. filed a fee transmittal to request Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00322 concerning Nutanix’s patent 11,010,336. The filing includes payment of $452 and asserts small and micro entity status.
patent denied · Dec 18, 2024
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00322
The PTAB denied Tessell’s request for Director Review of the earlier decision that denied institution of the IPR against Nutanix’s patent. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
patent · Dec 18, 2024
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00322
Tessell has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑23 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent 11,010,336, arguing obviousness over prior‑art database‑provisioning UIs and hyperconverged infrastructure. The petition also argues that the Board lacks discretionary grounds to deny institution.
patent · Dec 18, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00311
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Stratasys’s networked 3‑D‑printing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and arguing against discretionary denial under the Fintiv precedent.
