US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 183 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Generac Power Systems, Inc. v.PSLC LLC
· IPR2026-00024
Generac Power Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate PSLC’s ’857 microgrid load‑control patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering frequency‑based load shedding.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2026-00048
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Headwater Research’s ’757 patent covering wireless offloading and network selection. The petition relies on prior‑art references Wynn, Karaoguz and Deshpande to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v.Ziklag IP LLC
· IPR2026-00047
Amazon Web Services has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of a 2001 music‑distribution patent, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of earlier cable‑distribution patents (Yurt and Logan). The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
· IPR2026-00025
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Netskope's U.S. Patent 8,117,639 covering network access control. The petition relies on Richmond, Wood, and Teraslinna as anticipatory and obviousness prior art.
patent
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
· IPR2026-00040
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition against Netskope’s ’336 patent covering network‑access redirection. The challenger contends that all 20 claims are anticipated or obvious over Subbiah and, for dependent claims, over Hinton and Crandell. Fortinet seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent
RJ Brands, LLC d/b/a Chefman v.SharkNinja Operating LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01530
RJ Brands (Chefman) has filed an IPR petition challenging SharkNinja’s dual‑air‑fryer patent, arguing lack of priority support and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition targets claims 1‑4 and 7‑22 and seeks to have them declared unpatentable.
patent
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
· IPR2025-01604
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corp.’s U.S. Patent 10,728,436 covering robot‑based object detection. The petition alleges obviousness over prior publications on edge detection (Rosenstein, Canny, Xu) and depth‑map techniques (Nourbakhsh, Tsutsumi). The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
· IPR2025-01598
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 43 of U.S. Patent 9,005,293, asserting that the claim is anticipated or obvious over prior‑art spinal‑implant references. The petition highlights alleged nondisclosure of key references during prosecution and deficiencies in the patent’s written description.
patent
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS, INC.
· IPR2026-00019
Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 9,448,367 owned by Applied Optoelectronics. The petition asserts that all nine claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering optical transceiver adapters.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
· IPR2025-01605
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Massively Broadband’s UWB repeater patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2026-00005
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Malikie Innovations’ dock patent, arguing they are obvious over the earlier Tsutsui Japanese application. The petition includes a technical expert declaration and asserts no discretionary denial applies.
patent
Intelligent Protection Management Corp. v.Cisco Technology, Inc., et al.
· IPR2025-01589
IPM petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cisco’s ’708 video‑conferencing patent, arguing all 19 claims are obvious over prior‑art sliders and layout controls.
patent
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01514
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent No. 11,176,538 covering limited‑duration payment numbers. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Gomez, Phillips, Casey, and Law, and argues that discretionary denial is not appropriate.
patent
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2026-00006
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging Malikie Innovations' 8,610,397 battery‑charger patent. The petition alleges obviousness over several Japanese and U.S. references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
NIUM PTE. LTD. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
· IPR2025-01586
NIUM PTE. LTD. has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Intercurrency Software’s ’701 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art trading system disclosures.
patent
Bonerge Lifescience (Hunan) Co., Ltd. v.Nanjing Nutrabuilding Bio-Tech Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01593
Bonerge Lifescience petitions the PTAB to invalidate five method claims of a diabetes‑treatment patent, asserting obviousness over Turner, Shaw, Zhang and Feng references.
patent
SHENZHEN QIANFENYI INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.Wacom Co. Ltd.
· IPR2025-01596
Shenzhen Qianfenyi petitions the PTAB to invalidate Wacom’s 2018 stylus patent, asserting that its tilt‑detection claims are obvious over prior‑art Yoshida combined with either Ikeda or Iguchi. The petition lists two 35 U.S.C. §103 grounds covering 21 claims.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
· IPR2025-01594
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 39 claims of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 10,224,999, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of six prior‑art references.
patent
Apple Inc. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
· IPR2025-01496
Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cobblestone Wireless’s ’347 patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over Hardacker, Medbo, and Wallace prior art. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
· IPR2025-01583
WHOOP petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 6, 11‑12, 14, and 18 of Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable optical sensor patent, asserting obviousness over Lisogurski combined with Carlson, Walker, or Tam and invoking collateral estoppel from prior IPRs.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
· IPR2025-01565
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 8,350,763 covering multiband antennas. The challenger alleges the patent is obvious over several earlier references and seeks cancellation of all claims.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
· IPR2025-01573
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of Perceptive Automata’s autonomous‑driving patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art machine‑learning patents and that many claim elements are non‑patentable printed matter.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
· IPR2025-01563
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’548 patent covering steerable antenna technology for radiation safety. The petition relies on prior art such as Schlub, Oshiyama, Prasad, Seol and Yin to argue anticipation and obviousness.
patent
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2025-01567
Accelight Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑4 of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’301 patent, asserting obviousness over Kim and over a Ho‑Lee combination. The petition includes a claim‑construction argument for the term “carrier.”
