US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 174 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Dec 18, 2024
GOOGLE LLC v.EscapeX IP LLC
· IPR2025-00337
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of EscapeX’s ’687 patent covering social‑media engagement monetization. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and meets the statutory threshold for institution.
patent instituted · Dec 18, 2024
GOOGLE LLC v.EscapeX IP LLC
· IPR2025-00337
Google successfully secured institution of IPR against EscapeX IP over a social networking patent, challenging 24 claims based on obviousness.
patent instituted · Dec 18, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00311
The PTAB institution decision found Petitioner's arguments of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 sufficiently meritorious to proceed. The Board specifically noted that Claim 1 was likely unpatentable over Mazumder and Mori, adopting the petitioner’s definition of ordinary skill in the art.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Dec 18, 2024
GOOGLE LLC v.EscapeX IP LLC
· IPR2025-00337
Google LLC successfully invalidated EscapeX IP LLC's patent (10474687) in the PTAB, finding all 24 claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board relied on combinations of prior art references like Fuloria and Andler to demonstrate that the claimed content engagement systems were predictable advancements in social networking technology.
patent · Dec 17, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00321
Stratasys seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB panel’s decision instituting inter partes review of eight claims of its 3‑D‑printer patent. The owner argues the panel misapplied the Fintiv factors and ignored the Guidance Memorandum, warranting a denial of institution under § 314(a).
patent · Dec 17, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00321
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks institution of its IPR against Stratasys’s 3D‑printer patent, arguing the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that its broad stipulations block further invalidity attacks. The petitioner urges the Board to reject a discretionary denial and proceed with the review.
patent denied · Dec 17, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00321
The USPTO Director denied petitions for review of institution decisions in three IPRs challenging Stratasys patents, including U.S. Patent 9,421,713. The denial leaves the institution decisions standing.
patent · Dec 17, 2024
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00305
ASUS moves to withdraw its IPR petition after a settlement in related Roku proceedings renders the challenge moot.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 17, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
· IPR2025-00250
Amazon and NL Giken settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,094,236 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
patent · Dec 17, 2024
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00306
Court decision.
patent · Dec 17, 2024
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00304
ASUS filed a motion to withdraw its IPR petition against VideoLabs' patent after related Roku IPRs were settled, rendering its joinder motions moot. The Board will decide on the withdrawal request.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 17, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
· IPR2025-00250
Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00250 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent holder NL Giken over U.S. Patent 8,094,236. The motion argues that termination is appropriate given the early stage of the proceeding and public policy favoring settlement.
patent denied · Dec 17, 2024
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
· IPR2025-00215
The PTAB denied Phison's request for post‑grant review of claims 1‑6 of U.S. Patent 11,854,612, finding the petitioner failed to show any claim was likely unpatentable.
patent denied · Dec 17, 2024
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
· IPR2025-00215
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ petition for post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger failed to meet the ‘more likely than not’ burden. The Board upheld the patent’s claims across all seven challenged claims.
patent · Dec 17, 2024
LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00300
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of U.S. Patent 9,578,384, arguing they are obvious over a combination of the Kim smart‑TV disclosure and publicly available Netflix UI videos, plus the Hunt and Hunleth patents. Two grounds are asserted under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). The petition also argues discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent · Dec 17, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00321
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has petitioned an IPR against Stratasys' 3‑D‑printing patent covering purge‑tower printing, asserting obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Dec 17, 2024
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00306
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging VideoLabs' U.S. Patent 8,291,236 covering conditional‑access and DRM bridging. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art patents and seeks institution of the review.
patent · Dec 17, 2024
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00304
ASUSTek seeks an IPR to invalidate VideoLabs' 8,291,236 patent covering conditional access and DRM bridging, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as the Russ, Robert, and Eskicioglu patents.
patent · Dec 17, 2024
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00305
ASUSTek has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VideoLabs' U.S. Patent 8,291,236, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the Russ patent. The petition also argues there is no discretionary denial basis.
patent · Dec 17, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
· IPR2025-00250
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight claims of NL Giken’s ’236 TV safety‑monitoring patent, alleging obviousness over several pre‑AIA references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted under the Fintiv framework.
patent · Dec 17, 2024
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
· IPR2025-00215
Phison Electronics Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate all twelve claims of Vervain’s ‘300 NAND flash patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition seeks institution to streamline parallel district‑court litigation.
patent · Dec 17, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
· IPR2025-00024
Google, Samsung and others have filed an IPR petition challenging Truesight’s ’300 patent covering on‑screen video chapter navigation. The petition asserts that prior‑art references Nishikawa, Angiolillo, Vahtola and Ackley render all 20 claims obvious. The Board is asked to institute review and cancel the claims.
patent instituted · Dec 17, 2024
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00321
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR petition challenging Patent No. 9,421,713 B2 based on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in additive manufacturing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by prior art (Boyer).
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Dec 17, 2024
LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00300
VIZIO successfully convinced the PTAB that MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.'s claims related to VOD user interfaces were obvious over prior art references. The Board found that combining existing concepts from sources like TechnoBuffalo and Kim provided sufficient motivation for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
