US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 182 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Meta Platforms, LLC v.Weple IP Holdings LLC et al.
· IPR2026-00081
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging all 26 claims of U.S. Patent 12,131,357, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art web‑media platforms (Fosnacht) combined with native‑app techniques (Kirkpatrick) and advertising methods (Sharma). The petition meets all procedural requirements and seeks institution of the review.
patent
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Weple IP Holdings LLC et al.
· IPR2026-00080
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition to invalidate Weple IP Holdings' 12‑billion‑dollar streaming‑media patent, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over earlier web‑video and native‑app patents. The petition outlines three grounds of obviousness and discusses discretionary denial issues.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
· IPR2025-01564
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 33 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’625 patent, which covers steerable‑antenna techniques for reducing user radiation. The challenger argues the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references, including Schlub, Seol, Prasad, and Yin.
patent
Meta Platforms, LLC v.Weple IP Holdings LLC et al.
· IPR2026-00079
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Weple IP's 12,112,357 patent covering mobile streaming media. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over Fosnacht, Kirkpatrick, and Sharma references and seeks institution of the IPR.
patent
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Guides Inc.
· IPR2026-00056
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all six claims of Adeia Guides’ U.S. Patent 10,165,324. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and argues that those references were never considered during prosecution.
patent
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Technologies Inc.
· IPR2026-00053
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑5 and 9‑13 of U.S. Patent 9,235,428, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references covering web proxies and GUI rendering.
patent
FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
· IPR2026-00060
FedEx has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations' clustered‑computing licensing patent, arguing obviousness over Sparks and Bram references.
patent
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2026-00059
Toyota and Kia have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Emerging Automotive’s vehicle e‑key patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details four statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
· IPR2025-01550
Bose Corporation has filed a petition to invalidate IngenioSpec’s U.S. Patent 12,044,901 covering head‑worn electronic devices. The petition asserts lack of priority and anticipatory/obviousness grounds based on Howell‑887 and multiple prior‑art combinations. The PTAB has yet to decide whether to institute the IPR.
patent
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
· IPR2025-01549
Bose Corporation filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 32 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’2901 wireless headset patent, asserting lack of priority and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
· IPR2026-00045
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition relies on 35 U.S.C. §103 and presents detailed claim‑by‑claim arguments.
patent
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
· IPR2025-01547
Bose Corp. filed an IPR petition challenging all 82 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’789 hearing‑enhancement patent. The petition asserts lack of written‑description support and cites multiple prior‑art references to render the claims anticipated or obvious under §§102 and 103.
patent
SHENZHEN QIANFENYI INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.Wacom Co. Ltd.
· IPR2025-01533
Shenzhen Qianfenyi petitions an IPR against Wacom's 9,977,519 active‑pen patent, asserting that all challenged claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. Four grounds are presented covering §§102 and 103. The petition seeks institution of the review.
patent
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2026-00043
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ ’282 patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references.
patent
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
· IPR2026-00051
Disney has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑13 of Adeia’s U.S. Patent 8,280,987, alleging obviousness over prior‑art CDN patents Dilley, Russell, and Menon. The petition includes detailed claim‑by‑claim mappings and proposed claim constructions.
patent
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
· IPR2026-00031
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition challenging Netskope’s U.S. Patent 8,635,697 covering network‑based malware detection and OS fingerprinting. The petition asserts obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 by combining three prior‑art references. The case is pending institution.
patent
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
· IPR2026-00054
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8, 13‑15 of U.S. Patent 9,762,639, alleging obviousness over multiple streaming‑media references such as Lewis, Pyle, Barraclough and Jain.
patent
FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
· IPR2026-00039
FedEx has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations' 2009 patent on hot deployment in grid computing, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2026-00049
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claim 26 of Headwater Research’s ’359 patent, arguing that the claim is obvious over the Shell, Cole, and Flack references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
· IPR2026-00041
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition challenging all 35 claims of Netskope’s ’282 patent covering dynamic firewall rule updates, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Coss patent and the Ke publication.
patent
Ontel Products Corporation et al. v.Happy Products, Inc.
· IPR2025-01536
Ontel Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Happy Products' RE’479 tablet‑pillow patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references covering similar multi‑angle media supports.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
· IPR2026-00035
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 7,676,194 covering an ultrawideband broadband repeater. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references including Ganz, Larrick, Engels, Perlman and Roese. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
· IPR2026-00052
Disney has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of a video‑streaming patent, arguing obviousness over prior art references Mao, Liu, Sherer and Wu‑771.
patent
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v.MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
· IPR2026-00015
Resonac files an IPR petition challenging MR Technologies' 11,138,997 patent covering perpendicular magnetic recording media. The petition asserts obviousness over Takenoiri (and Li for certain claims) and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑2, 4‑7, and 9.
