US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 179 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals
· PGR2025-00086
Dr. Falk Pharma challenges Ellodi's U.S. Patent 12,290,598 covering orally disintegrating tablets, asserting lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, anticipation, and obviousness over numerous prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of all 34 claims.
patent
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00087
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,371,685 covering modified PH20 hyaluronidase proteins, asserting lack of written description and enablement.
patent
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
· IPR2026-00002
Ford Motor Co. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle‑personalization patent (U.S. 9,147,296). The petition asserts that all twenty claims are obvious over three Japanese prior‑art references (Endo, Suzuki, He). The Board is asked to institute the review.
patent
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
· IPR2026-00021
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine Sonos claims covering multi‑zone audio control, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references such as Geiwitz, Van Hulle, Aiso, and Allen.
patent
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
· IPR2025-01601
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Brain Corp.’s U.S. Patent 10,379,539, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider well‑known navigation and obstacle‑avoidance techniques. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2026-00003
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging Malikie's ’305 patent covering space‑time coding, asserting that claims 1‑3 and 6 are anticipated or obvious over several earlier patents. The petition argues no secondary considerations exist and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2026-00095
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging Sandpiper CDN’s 8,478,903 patent covering content‑delivery networks, asserting that the claims are obvious over Kenner and other prior art.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.
· PGR2025-00083
Samsung Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all twelve claims of SnapAid’s ’452 patent covering real‑time image‑quality assessment. The challenger alleges obviousness, indefiniteness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
· PGR2025-00082
Samsung petitions the PTAB to invalidate W&Wsens' 12,243,948 patent covering microstructured photodetectors, asserting obviousness over Kuboi, Vasylyev and Shinohara and lack of enablement.
patent
Nicholson Manufacturing Ltd. et al. v.BID GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
· PGR2025-00081
Nicholson Manufacturing has petitioned the PTAB to cancel all 18 claims of BID Group Technologies' AI‑enabled log debarking patent, asserting obviousness, lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, and indefiniteness.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 28 claims of Netlist’s 12,308,087 DRAM‑package patent, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior‑art memory‑stack technologies.
patent
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
· PGR2025-00077
Terumo BCT petitions the PTAB to invalidate Haemonetics' plasma‑collection patent, asserting obviousness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible abstract ideas.
patent
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
· IPR2025-01584
WHOOP, Inc. petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Omni MedSci's wearable sensor patent (U.S. 10,874,304), asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition relies on earlier IPR findings and collateral estoppel to argue the claims lack patentability.
patent
Election Systems & Software, LLC v.Hart InterCivic, Inc.
· PGR2025-00066
Election Systems & Software petitions to invalidate Hart InterCivic’s 12,125,319 patent, asserting that its claims are abstract, obvious over prior‑art voting‑machine technology, and lack written description for recursive features.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· PGR2025-00068
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi’s ’756 patent, asserting obviousness, patent‑ineligible subject matter, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The petition relies on prior art Chincholi (WO 2013/126859) and Clegg (U.S. Patent 9,055,592).
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· PGR2025-00069
Samsung has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate 29 claims of XiFi’s U.S. Pat. 12,250,564, alleging obviousness, patent‑ineligibility, lack of written description, and indefiniteness.
patent
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
· PGR2025-00059
GE Healthcare petitions to invalidate Johns Hopkins' U.S. Patent 12,115,233 covering FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceuticals, asserting obviousness, lack of written description, and lack of enablement.
patent
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00053
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,195,773 covering soluble human PH20 hyaluronidase variants. The petition alleges lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness over prior art. The case is pending before the PTAB.
patent
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· PGR2025-00058
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of Solmetex’s dental mouthpiece patent, alleging obviousness, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The petition leans on three earlier patents and expert testimony to argue the claims are unpatentable.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· PGR2025-00064
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed a PGR seeking to invalidate claim 7 of Omni MedSci’s 12,193,790 patent, arguing obviousness over Lisogurski and Carlson and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs.
patent
North Sails Group, LLC v.Team New Zealand Limited et al.
· PGR2025-00062
North Sails has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Team New Zealand’s high‑performance sail patent (US 12,110,089). The petitioner alleges anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, lack of enablement and insufficient written description, citing a range of prior‑art references and prior sales. The PTAB has yet to rule on the petition.
patent
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
· PGR2025-00060
TankLogix has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of SitePro’s ‘184 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling equipment, arguing abstract‑idea ineligibility, obviousness over four prior references, and lack of written‑description support.
patent
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00042
Merck has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,037,618 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition argues the claims lack written description, are not enabled, and are obvious over prior patents and publications.
patent
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
· PGR2025-00043
Intas Pharmaceuticals petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 44 claims of Atossa’s 391 patent covering 90% (Z)-endoxifen compositions, asserting anticipation, obviousness, and lack of written description.
