US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 175 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovation Limited et al.
· IPR2026-00262
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 14‑21 and 24‑28 of U.S. Patent 7,057,509, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art systems for object monitoring and tracking.
patent
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
· IPR2026-00274
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Sanas.ai’s real‑time accent‑conversion patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition invokes 35 U.S.C. § 103 and follows Phillips claim‑construction standards.
patent
Google LLC v.K.Mizra LLC
· IPR2026-00254
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of K.Mizra's 2012 wireless networking patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Yoon, Andric, and Budampati references.
patent
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
· IPR2026-00259
Accord BioPharma petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Janssen’s anti‑TNF antibody patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness based on Janssen’s own clinical‑trial data and FDA‑approved labeling.
patent
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
· IPR2026-00256
Accord BioPharma petitions to invalidate claims 1‑10 of US 982, alleging they are anticipated and obvious in view of a Janssen‑sponsored clinical trial and FDA‑approved labeling. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Vusura Technology LLC
· IPR2026-00255
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑25 of Vusura’s ’303 patent, which covers multimedia content presentation during telephone calls. The challenger relies on the 2007 Roundtree publication to argue obviousness under §103.
patent
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
· IPR2026-00258
Accord BioPharma has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Janssen’s US 12,122,824 patent covering an IV golimumab regimen for psoriatic arthritis, arguing lack of novelty and obviousness based on a Janssen‑sponsored clinical trial and FDA‑approved labeling.
patent
SAGEMCOM BROADBAND SAS v.Entropic Communications, LLC
· IPR2026-00263
Sagemcom Broadband petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Entropic Communications’ ’275 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Zhang and related prior art.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
· IPR2026-00222
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of U.S. Patent 12,338,71, asserting that the vehicle gear‑selection and unparking features are obvious over Joos and its combinations with Bettger, Kischkat, and Hoop. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
· IPR2026-00257
Accord BioPharma petitions the PTAB to invalidate Janssen’s golimumab patent (US 11,041,020) on the basis that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the company’s own clinical‑trial protocol and other prior art.
patent
FanDuel, Inc. et al. v.WinView IP Holdings, LLC
· IPR2026-00245
FanDuel has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate WinView’s ‘349 patent covering synchronized live‑sports gaming, asserting that a 1998 European filing anticipates all challenged claims.
patent
Citadel Securities LLC v.HFT Solutions, LLC
· IPR2026-00212
Citadel Securities petitions the PTAB to invalidate six claims of HFT Solutions’ ’286 patent, alleging that the FPGA‑PLL synchronization method is fully disclosed in Altera’s white paper, the Stratix Handbook, the Si5345 manual, and a 2012 Lockwood paper.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al.
· IPR2026-00193
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging InterDigital’s ’876 patent covering large‑block intra‑prediction in video codecs. The petition asserts obviousness over Xiong, VCEG‑AJ21, and H.264, seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
· IPR2026-00205
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of the ’457 vehicle‑gear‑selection patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition cites expert testimony and seeks a finding of unpatentability under § 103.
patent
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2026-00154
Target Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all fifteen claims of Headwater Research’s 2017 ‘192 patent covering a message‑link server for MMS. The petition relies on a broad set of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §§102/103.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.
· IPR2026-00208
Cisco Systems filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Damaka's U.S. 9,578,092 patent covering modular video‑conferencing functionality. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 for claims 1‑30.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Damaka, Inc.
· IPR2026-00209
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 20 claims of Damaka’s ’046 patent covering modular video‑conferencing software. The petition relies on four prior‑art references—Abuan, Ludwig, Lawson and Guzman—to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
· IPR2026-00145
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Smart Speaker’s ’710 patent covering server‑based voice control of smart‑home devices. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
patent
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
· IPR2026-00146
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Smart Speaker’s ’706 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider obviousness, while the patent owner maintains the invention’s novelty.
patent
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
· IPR2026-00147
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Smart Speaker's ’174 smart‑home patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider key prior art and that the claims recite routine home‑automation functions.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2026-00138
Google has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 9,609,544, seeking cancellation of all 23 claims on the basis that they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references covering network policy and power‑management techniques.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
· IPR2026-00204
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 24 claims of the ’184 vehicle gear‑selection patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists thirteen grounds covering combinations of Joos with Kischkat, Hoop, Allexi, Bettger, and Bayer.
patent
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
· IPR2026-00129
Samsung Display has filed an IPR petition to invalidate all 16 claims of Pictiva's OLED patent, arguing that each claim is anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Suzuki, Diekmann, Ma, and Lee.
patent
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
· IPR2026-00184
Microsoft has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Qomplx’s multi-factor authentication patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Kirti patent and the Coffin textbook. The petition seeks institution of IPR on claims 1‑21, 23‑28, and 30.
