US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 18 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Nov 7, 2025
SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLight v.Pathway IP LLC
· IPR2025-01231
ShutterLight petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 13 claims of Pathway IP’s 7,841,729 webcam illuminator patent, asserting obviousness over eight prior‑art references.
patent · Nov 7, 2025
Pinterest, Inc. v.OpenTV, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01184
Pinterest has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate OpenTV’s ’169 Patent claims covering interactive‑TV rendering methods, citing obviousness over five prior‑art references.
patent instituted · Nov 7, 2025
Spotify AB et al. v.Tijerino, Manuel
· IPR2025-01280
Spotify USA Inc. successfully challenged 17 claims of the '9146925 patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB preliminarily found that the combination of prior art references—Laut, Kincaid, and Bongiovi—renders the claimed digital jukebox system obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.
patent denied · Nov 7, 2025
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01278
The USPTO Director denied the institution of multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, meaning no trial will take place.
patent denied · Nov 7, 2025
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01277
The USPTO Director denied institution for IPR2025-01277, meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent.
patent instituted · Nov 7, 2025
SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLight v.Pathway IP LLC
· IPR2025-01231
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against Pathway IP LLC's '729 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Petitioner argues that Claim 1 is obvious over Naghi and Dine by combining their respective features to create an optimized webcam illumination device.
patent instituted · Nov 7, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
· IPR2025-01188
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution in an IPR against Hannibal IP LLC's patent 11272535. The proceeding is currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.
patent instituted · Nov 7, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
· IPR2025-01189
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01189, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Hannibal IP's patent, though the proceeding is currently stayed.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Nov 6, 2025
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-01129
The Board instituted IPR2020‑01206 on 294 claims of the ’691 patent and held eight claims unpatentable for anticipation by Grupp ’483, while leaving the remaining claims intact.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Nov 6, 2025
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-01129
The PTAB found 11 of the 14 challenged claims of the ’395 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) due to anticipation by Grupp ’483, while claims 11, 12, and 14 survived. Written‑description and enablement challenges were rejected.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Nov 6, 2025
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-01129
The PTAB held that Samsung's claims 1‑5 and 8‑10 of the ’395 patent were anticipated by Goodnick, rendering them unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims were left intact.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 6, 2025
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-01129
The PTAB found all challenged claims of the ’261 patent unpatentable after concluding that prior art Grupp ’483 anticipates the claims and Jammy renders them obvious. Motions to exclude expert testimony were denied.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Nov 6, 2025
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-01129
The PTAB held that claims 1‑4 and 13 of the ’691 patent are unpatentable for anticipation or obviousness, while the remaining challenged claims survive.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 6, 2025
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-01129
GlobalFoundries and OAK IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01129 following a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’880 patent and related proceedings.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 6, 2025
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-01129
Globalfoundries and Oak IP LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,937,880 before the Board instituted trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent · Nov 6, 2025
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-01129
GlobalFoundries has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of Oak IP's U.S. Patent No. 10,937,880, asserting lack of written description for the "oxide of titanium" genus and insufficient enablement of specific contact resistivity limits. The petition relies on Grupp’483 for anticipation and Jammy for obviousness.
patent · Nov 6, 2025
ProAmpac Holdings Inc. v.Sigma Technologies Int'l, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01143
ProAmpac has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of U.S. Patent 11,072,148, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references.
patent · Nov 6, 2025
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
· IPR2025-01137
Caihong has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Corning’s 8,627,684 patent covering a glass‑roll apparatus for flat‑panel displays. The petition relies on eight prior‑art references to argue obviousness of claims 1‑14.
patent denied · Nov 6, 2025
ProAmpac Holdings Inc. v.Sigma Technologies Int'l, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01143
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01143 for ProAmpac Holdings Inc., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.
patent denied · Nov 6, 2025
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
· IPR2025-01137
The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR proceedings initiated by Caihong Display Devices against Corning regarding patent 8627684.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 5, 2025
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00990
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,470 B2 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 5, 2025
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00990
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,259,470 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR.
patent · Nov 5, 2025
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00990
Mercedes‑Benz and patent‑owner The Phelan Group filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The parties seek to separate the agreement from the IPR record and limit third‑party access.
patent · Nov 5, 2025
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00990
Mercedes‑Benz has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Phelan Group’s U.S. Patent 10,259,470 covering a driver‑authentication and safety system. The petition cites ten grounds of obviousness or anticipation, relying on prior‑art references such as Arshad, Petrik, Siwinski, Wu, Kudo and Murphy. The requester seeks cancellation of all twenty claims.
