US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 177 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Wybotics, Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
· IPR2026-00159
Wybotics has filed an IPR petition challenging Zodiac Pool Systems' patent for an autonomous pool‑cleaning robot, asserting that the invention is anticipated by a Chinese robot patent and obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all five claims.
patent
Plaid Inc. v.Secure Authentication Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2026-00157
Plaid Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,315,090, asserting that its ten claims on automated multi‑factor authentication are anticipated or obvious over earlier patents and public disclosures.
patent
Wybotics Inc. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
· IPR2026-00158
Wybotics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Zodiac Pool Systems' pool‑cleaning patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated by a 2007 Chinese filing and obvious over multiple U.S. robot‑cleaner references. The petition seeks institution of the IPR on claims 1‑3.
patent terminated or settled
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00116
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components, Inc. settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate multiple IPR proceedings, including the one covering patent 11,307,369 B2. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-00341
The PTAB has sent a Director Review request in IPR2024-00341, instructing Samsung and Headwater Research to file a concise, evidence‑free response within five business days. No new evidence may be introduced and briefing is limited to 15 pages.
patent
Tricam Industries, LLC v.--
· PGR2026-00044
Tricam Industries has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 13 claims of Little Giant Ladder Systems' ‘506 patent covering articulated ladder hinges. The petition alleges obviousness, lack of written description, and indefiniteness, and argues that the examiner erred in granting the patent.
patent terminated or settled
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
· IPR2024-00115
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,307,369. They jointly request the settlement be kept confidential and move to terminate the IPR.
patent
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
· IPR2026-00150
Sarepta Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition challenging Genzyme’s ’894 patent covering analytical ultracentrifugation methods for AAV vectors. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious in view of long‑standing literature (de la Maza) and the Le Bec patent, combined with Sommer and Cole. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑7 and 10‑30.
patent
Entegris, Inc. v.--
· PGR2026-00037
Entegris has filed a PGR petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,347,711, which covers a wafer‑container gas diffusion device. The company alleges anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness over its own prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of all 31 claims.
patent
Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2026-00094
Eoptolink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twelve claims of Applied Optoelectronics' 10,578,818 optical transceiver patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Wang, Koutrokois, and Tsai references.
patent
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
· IPR2026-00143
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 25 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’599 patent covering wireless audio eyeglasses, arguing the claims are obvious over several prior‑art patents and lack a valid priority date.
patent
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2026-00088
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Headwater’s 9,615,192 patent covering a message‑link server for MMS. The petition relies on a broad set of prior‑art references, arguing that the claimed features are obvious. No Board decision has been issued yet.
patent
Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v.Kurin, Inc.
· IPR2026-00097
Magnolia Medical Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑24 of Kurin’s blood‑sample optimization device, asserting that the Bullington800 publication (alone and combined with Brancazio and Liu) anticipates or makes the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of all challenged claims.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. et al. v.MYW Semitech, LLC
· IPR2026-00066
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging MYW Semitech’s 11,538,763 chip‑package patent, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks to invalidate the patent before the PTAB.
patent
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Surrozen Operating, Inc. et al.
· PGR2026-00027
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,297,278 covering broad tetravalent Wnt‑surrogate antibodies. The petition asserts lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and anticipation by the Garcia publication.
patent
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2026-00073
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of SoundClear’s ’675 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines seven distinct obviousness grounds and argues against discretionary denial.
patent
Bicara Therapeutics, Inc. v.The John Hopkins University et al.
· PGR2026-00025
Bicara Therapeutics has filed a PTAB Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of Johns Hopkins' 2025 antibody‑fusion protein patent, alleging lack of written description, lack of enablement, and improper claim dependency.
patent
Viance, LLC v.Koppers Performance Chemicals, Inc.
· PGR2026-00023
Viance, LLC has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Koppers' wood preservative patent (US 12,370,716), alleging lack of written description and that the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. et al. v.MYW Semitech, LLC
· IPR2026-00067
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of MYW Semitech’s chip‑package patent. The petition alleges obviousness over several prior‑art references covering interposer and bump technologies.
patent
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
· IPR2026-00069
GE Healthcare petitions to invalidate Johns Hopkins’s 11,938,201 patent covering FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceuticals, arguing that claims 1‑3 are obvious over US‑633, US‑121, Meletta and Jansen references.
patent
Bird Buddy, Inc. v.Perkins, Frederick
· IPR2026-00141
Bird Buddy files an IPR petition challenging six claims of its ‘242 smart bird‑feeder patent, asserting that all claim elements are disclosed in earlier bird‑feeder and electronics references.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
· IPR2026-00061
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’194 patent covering MOS transistor fabrication. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references: Hoentschel262, Wang407, and Wang753.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
· IPR2026-00130
TSMC has filed a petition to invalidate Marlin Semiconductor’s 9,318,609 FinFET patent, asserting that all ten claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier TSMC patents and related publications. The petition lists multiple grounds under §§102 and 103, relying on Xu, Ching, and Huang references.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
· IPR2026-00058
TSMC has filed an IPR petition against Marlin Semiconductor’s U.S. Pat. 7,288,822, asserting that all fourteen claims are unpatentable. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue obviousness and anticipation under §§ 102 and 103.
