US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 177 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent denied · Dec 13, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00294
The PTAB denied Micron's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory because the patent owner had successfully filed a statutory disclaimer covering all challenged claims related to 3D memory devices.
patent instituted · Dec 13, 2024
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
· IPR2025-00264
Koki Holdings America Ltd. successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools regarding fastener driving tools. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on multiple prior art references, despite complex claim construction arguments.
patent instituted · Dec 13, 2024
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
· IPR2025-00263
Koki Holdings America Ltd. successfully secured institution in this IPR against Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc., challenging all 30 claims of Patent No. 11241776. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail based on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
patent instituted · Dec 13, 2024
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
· IPR2025-00262
Koki Holdings America Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc., challenging 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10478954 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board's decision was supported by preliminary claim construction findings that favored the Petitioner’s argument regarding design motivation and prior art combination.
patent instituted · Dec 13, 2024
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
· IPR2025-00261
Koki Holdings America Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-20 are unpatentable. The Board issued key claim constructions regarding 'lifter' and 'gas pressure system,' paving the way for trial.
patent denied · Dec 13, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00244
Micron Technology's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Micron failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits, specifically regarding obviousness over prior art Costa in 3D memory technology.
patent instituted · Dec 13, 2024
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2025-00207
Arm Ltd et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC's patent, challenging claims based on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board accepted that a reasonable likelihood of prevailing existed on at least one claim challenge, moving the case into the merits phase.
patent instituted · Dec 13, 2024
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2025-00207
The Director granted review and vacated a denial of institution for Arm Ltd against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC, referring the IPR back to the Board after parallel litigation was dismissed.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 12, 2024
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2025-00302
Intel, Lenovo, and Motorola filed a motion to dismiss their IPR against Collision Communications. The PTAB granted the motion, dismissing the petition and terminating the proceeding.
patent · Dec 12, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2025-00284
Lenovo and Motorola filed a motion to dismiss their IPR against Collision Communications, arguing good cause to withdraw before institution, citing prior PTAB precedent and a denied related Samsung IPR.
patent · Dec 12, 2024
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
· IPR2025-00267
Entegris contests Inpria’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of an IPR, arguing that Lam Research is not a real party in interest and that Inpria’s claim‑construction arguments are untimely.
patent · Dec 12, 2024
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
· IPR2025-00267
Entegris seeks rehearing of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Inpria’s ’903 patent covering semiconductor‑material compounds. The petition argues the Director’s retroactive rescission of guidance and misapplication of Fintiv factors violated statutory and due‑process requirements.
patent · Dec 12, 2024
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
· IPR2025-00267
Inpria seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its ’903 patent, arguing Entegris failed the real‑party‑in‑interest test and that the Board’s claim construction conflicts with a Delaware court ruling.
patent · Dec 12, 2024
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
· IPR2025-00267
The USPTO granted Entegris’s rehearing request, vacated the earlier discretionary denial, and sent the IPR on Inpria’s lithography patent back to the Board for institution after a related district‑court case settled.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 12, 2024
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
· IPR2025-00267
Entegris and Inpria have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,673,903 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board had previously instituted the proceeding but no merits were decided.
patent · Dec 12, 2024
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
· IPR2025-00267
Entegris filed a motion to seal its confidential response to Inpria’s request for director review in IPR2025-00267, citing the need to protect trade‑secret information.
patent instituted · Dec 12, 2024
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
· IPR2025-00267
The PTAB instituted inter partes review of Entegris' challenge to Inpria's 11,673,903 patent covering high‑purity organotin compounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
patent · Dec 12, 2024
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
· IPR2025-00267
Entegris and Inpria filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, arguing that disclosure would harm their business interests.
patent · Dec 12, 2024
X Corp. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
· IPR2025-00299
X Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sterling Computers’ 7,716,217 patent covering email relevance scoring, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over prior art such as Dumais, Kircher, Krug, and Marston. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Dec 12, 2024
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
· IPR2025-00267
Entegris has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑10 of Inpria’s ’903 patent, asserting that the claimed high‑purity organotin compositions are fully disclosed in earlier literature. The petition challenges the patent on anticipation and obviousness grounds and argues that Inpria’s examiner‑era declarations were misleading.
patent · Dec 12, 2024
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2025-00303
Intel, Lenovo and Motorola have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑5 of Collision Communications’ ’703 patent covering iterative multi‑user detection. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness and urges the Board to institute the review.
patent · Dec 12, 2024
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2025-00302
Intel, Lenovo, and Motorola have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Collision Communications’ ’651 patent covering multi‑user detection. They rely on obviousness over Fuller‑Reznik and Frank‑Zha combinations and argue that discretionary denial factors favor institution.
patent · Dec 12, 2024
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2025-00301
Intel, Lenovo and Motorola seek to invalidate Collision Communications' 9,814,071 patent on multi‑user detection, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art such as Jin, Baum, Tsai and Vrzic. The petition emphasizes new arguments and opposes discretionary denial, requesting institution of the IPR.
patent · Dec 12, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2025-00285
Lenovo and Motorola filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications’ ’505 patent covering multi‑user detection. The petition asserts obviousness over Hottinen/Lilleberg and Zimmerman/Lilleberg and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
