US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 178 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
· PGR2026-00022
Paragon 28, an affiliate of Zimmer Biomet, petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 30 claims of Treace’s ’481 bunion‑correction patent, asserting that the claimed methods are obvious over multiple prior‑art surgical references.
patent terminated or settled
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
· IPR2024-00183
National Beef Packing and Institute for Environmental Health settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,534,584. The Board terminated the proceeding without a merits decision, granting confidentiality for the settlement.
patent
NRG Energy, Inc. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2026-00120
Vivint Smart Home and NRG Energy have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twenty claims of Malikie Innovations’ ’756 patent covering IoT software‑update control, citing obviousness over the Storto and Won publications.
patent
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
· PGR2026-00017
Paragon 28 seeks to invalidate all 30 claims of Treace's bunion‑correction patent, alleging lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over prior‑art guides and textbooks.
patent
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al. v.Railware, Inc. et al.
· IPR2026-00133
Westinghouse (Wabtec) petitions the PTAB to invalidate Railware’s 9,517,782 patent covering a railway block‑release system, arguing the claims are obvious over public FRA reports and several secret‑code patents.
patent
Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2026-00122
Eoptolink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑9 and 15‑19 of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’890 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness based on Takashi, Sato, and Ho references. The petition emphasizes that the claimed TOSA features were known in the industry prior to filing.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. et al. v.MYW Semitech, LLC
· IPR2026-00065
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,107,768, asserting that all 28 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering chip‑package technology.
patent
Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
· PGR2026-00015
Atossa Therapeutics has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Jina Pharmaceuticals’ 2025 patent on an endoxifen method for bipolar I disorder. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and anticipation by prior‑art Ahmad 2016. The case is pending institution.
patent
Xingmai Innovation Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. d/b/a Beatbot, Beatbot Technology (USA) Co., Ltd. et al. v.AIPER GLOBAL PTE. LTD.
· PGR2026-00012
Beatbot seeks a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,221,196 covering a pool‑cleaning robot with buoyancy‑control features. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim terms. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent
Univacco Technology Inc. v.LEONHARD KURZ Stiftung & Co., KG
· PGR2026-00011
Univacco Technology Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of the ‘935 decorative‑foil patent, alleging lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and indefiniteness. The petition relies on extensive expert analysis of the patent’s functional language and missing test protocols.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2026-00115
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s U.S. Patent 11,606,204, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering mobile authentication and key‑exchange techniques.
patent
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
· IPR2026-00046
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing they are obvious over the Lavender and Fletcher‑Haynes systems (and Min for a subset). The petition relies on detailed algorithmic comparisons and cites §103 unpatentability.
patent
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
· IPR2026-00113
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate all twelve claims of SitNet’s U.S. Patent 12,336,052, asserting obviousness over two sets of prior‑art references covering social‑network event handling. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2026-00116
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s U.S. Patent 11,973,864, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art cryptographic references. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim mappings and requests institution of the review.
patent
Samsara, Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2026-00034
Samsara has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Motive's camera‑calibration patent (US 12,136,276). The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering similar autonomous‑vehicle imaging and calibration techniques. It requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
patent
Terumo BCT, Inc v.Haemonetics Corporation
· PGR2026-00006
Terumo BCT has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent. The challenger asserts anticipation, obviousness, lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, and multiple §112 deficiencies. The petition is pending PTAB institution.
patent
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
· PGR2026-00003
WHOOP has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of claim 7 of Omni MedSci’s ’790 wearable sensor patent. The petition alleges obviousness over Lisogurski combined with Carlson, Lamego, or Soller, and raises indefiniteness and lack of enablement under § 112. It also invokes collateral estoppel based on prior IPR findings.
patent
Kia America, Inc. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· PGR2026-00008
Kia and Toyota have filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition challenging Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑key sharing patent (US 12,337,715). Petitioners allege obviousness over four prior‑art references and assert lack of written description for key claim limitations. They seek institution and cancellation of claims 1‑24.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
· IPR2026-00033
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 63 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’337 patent covering broadband wireless repeaters. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious in view of five prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review.
patent
Alvotech USA Inc. et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
· PGR2025-00085
Alvotech petitions the PTAB to invalidate Regeneron’s ’036 patent covering high‑dose aflibercept eye‑treatment formulations, alleging obviousness and lack of written description. The petition relies on multiple Regeneron disclosures and external prior art. The Board has yet to rule.
patent
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v.MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
· IPR2026-00014
Resonac has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of MR Technologies' 9,928,864 patent covering multilayer perpendicular magnetic recording media, asserting that the claims are obvious over Takenoiri and other prior art.
patent
Shuttleslide, LLC v.Sea Swivel Inc.
· PGR2025-00089
Shuttleslide, LLC has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Sea Swivel’s U.S. Pat. No. 12,258,111, alleging anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of written description based on numerous marine‑accessory references.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
· IPR2026-00032
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Massively Broadband’s ’925 patent covering a wireless‑network clearinghouse and location‑based advertising, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v.Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00088
Cytek Biosciences has filed a PGR petition challenging Beckman Coulter’s flow‑cytometer patent, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over several prior‑art references.
