US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 184 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
· IPR2025-01493
Apple files an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of HBCU Messaging’s ’450 patent on obviousness grounds, citing multiple prior‑art references covering mobile messaging.
patent
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01561
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s ’962 voltage‑regulator patent, asserting obviousness over the Scott patent and over Scott combined with Gradinariu. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim comparisons to the prior art.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
· IPR2025-01554
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of claims 1‑14 of PayGeo’s U.S. Patent No. 11,087,307. The challenger argues the claims are obvious in view of Lin, Rackley, and Tumminaro prior‑art references. The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01494
BOE has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Samsung Display’s ’503 patent covering inclined pads and bumps for LCD displays, citing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
· IPR2025-01555
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of PayGeo’s U.S. Patent 12,014,347, asserting that its ten claims covering multi‑factor authentication are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Grigg, Carter, and Google’s 2‑step verification. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.
patent
FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
· IPR2025-01491
FedEx has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations' data‑security‑for‑file‑system patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art file‑system and cryptographic references.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
· IPR2025-01553
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑14 of PayGeo’s ’018 mobile‑payment patent, asserting obviousness over Lin, Rackley and Tumminaro. The petition requests institution of the review.
patent
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01562
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s 12,109,384 patent covering a hemostasis valve. The petitioner alleges obviousness over prior‑art references Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Hermann and seeks institution of the review.
patent
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
· IPR2025-01488
Apple petitions to invalidate 30 claims of a messaging patent, arguing they are obvious over four prior‑art references covering mobile messaging, presence, and unified UI. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01560
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Palisade’s 3D NAND patent. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art references—Oh, Oh ’738, and Tokiwa—both singly and in combination. It requests that the Board institute the review and invalidate the claims.
patent
CRRC Meishan Co. Ltd. et al. v.Howmet Aerospace Inc.
· IPR2026-00268
CRRC Meishan has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Howmet Aerospace’s blind‑fastener patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Corbett 2018, Corbett 1981, Hurd, Sadri, and the BobTail catalog.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01545
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of Samsung Display's OLED pixel‑arrangement patent. The petition relies on five grounds of obviousness over prior‑art references such as Cok, Suh, Hong, Credelle‑379 and Elliott‑724. The Board is asked to institute the review.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--
· IPR2026-00266
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Zugara’s AR video‑chat patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over the Rosenthal and Vesely publications. The petition lists 29 claims and relies on 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
TikTok Inc. v.ShopSee, Inc.
· IPR2025-01485
TikTok has filed an IPR petition challenging ShopSee’s ’316 patent covering interactive video layers, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art such as Ohliger and related references.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
· IPR2025-01551
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of PayGeo’s 8,554,671 patent covering cashless mobile transactions. The challenger argues that claims 1‑3 and 22 are obvious over the Look, Stallings, and Tumminaro prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
· IPR2025-01540
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review of One‑E‑Way’s U.S. Patent 10,129,627 covering wireless digital audio spread‑spectrum technology, seeking cancellation of all twelve claims on priority and obviousness grounds.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01478
BOE Technology filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display’s OLED display patent (US 11,574,990). The petition asserts that all 30 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
patent
Hisense USA Corp. et al. v.Light Guide Innovations LLC
· IPR2025-01538
Hisense has filed an IPR petition challenging Light Guide Innovations' 8,267,537 patent covering LED backlight units. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Liu, Roberts, and Liu‑660, and establishes standing to proceed.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-01402
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of Netlist’s 3‑D stacked DRAM patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art memory stack designs and signaling protocols. The petition seeks institution of the trial and cancellation of the claims.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01480
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display’s U.S. Patent 10,439,015 covering OLED TFT display structures. The petition alleges obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references, including Kim‑584, Kim‑923, Moon, Masao and others. No claim constructions are asserted; the claims are to be given their plain meaning.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01479
BOE has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's OLED pixel‑circuit patent (US 11,574,991). The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering TFT layouts, capacitor structures, and pixel designs. Detailed claim‑by‑claim analyses are provided to support unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
· IPR2026-00265
Medtronic has filed a petition for inter partes review of Moskowitz Family’s U.S. Patent 10,064,738 covering spinal intervertebral fusion devices. The challenger alleges that the parent application Moskowitz 440, together with Waugh (and Michelson 019), makes the asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition seeks cancellation of 16 claims.
patent
Hisense USA Corp. et al. v.Light Guide Innovations LLC
· IPR2025-01537
Hisense has filed a petition for inter partes review of Light Guide Innovations' U.S. Patent 7,936,415 covering LED backlight modules. The petition asserts seven obviousness grounds based on Roberts and other prior art references, seeking cancellation of all 18 claims.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Redstone Logics LLC
· IPR2025-01532
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Redstone Logics’ ’339 patent covering multi‑core processor power management, seeking cancellation of ten claims as obvious over several pre‑AIA references.
