US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 186 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-01431
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Netlist’s 10,025,731 memory‑module patent, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of prior art from Ellsberry, Dour, and Abadeer. The petition seeks institution of the trial and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2025-01570
Accelight Technologies filed an IPR petition challenging Applied Optoelectronics' 10,788,690 patent covering optical isolator arrays. The petition asserts anticipation by Wang (102) for claims 1‑10 and obviousness over Wang and Xiong (103) for claims 11‑19, seeking cancellation of all claims.
patent
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
· IPR2025-01420
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing they are obvious over a suite of older apheresis technologies. The petition lists nine statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103, each tied to specific prior‑art references.
patent
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01489
Infineon filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of MOSAID’s 2008 ‘448 patent covering distributed multiplexing circuits. The challenger asserts obviousness over the Pixley and Watanabe references, supported by an expert declaration.
patent
FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
· IPR2025-01490
FedEx has filed an IPR petition challenging all 26 claims of Valtrus Innovations’ storage‑device performance monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Wolf, Kamiyama, and Woods under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
X Corp., v.Search & Share Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00244
X Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of the ’952 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Malla, Walther, and Smadja references under §§ 102 and 103.
patent
Atrius Development Group Corp. v.ABC IP, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01473
Atrius has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate ABC IP’s forced‑reset trigger patent (US 12,038,247) by arguing the claims are obvious over earlier patents and publicly posted YouTube videos that disclose a three‑position selector.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
· IPR2025-01484
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑6 of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’510 FinFET patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition presents three grounds, each invoking 35 U.S.C. § 103, targeting the entire claim set.
patent
Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP
· IPR2025-01486
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent 8,918,127, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art messaging systems. The petition relies on Horvath and Tsampalis publications and seeks cancellation of the claims.
patent
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
· IPR2025-01400
CrowdStrike filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Skysong Innovations’ ’721 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering browser security, daemons, and DNS techniques. The petition seeks a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent
Clean Chemistry, Inc. v.Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01471
Clean Chemistry has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 14 claims of Enviro Tech’s peracetic acid patent, arguing obviousness over Okano and combinations with Withenshaw and Oringer. The petition also asserts that the claims require steps to be performed in order.
patent
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
· IPR2026-00239
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 31 claims of WeCrevention’s high‑speed memory chip patent. The petition argues that each claim is obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering memory modules, ASIC controllers, and 3‑D stacking techniques.
patent
X Corp. v.Search & Share Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00235
X Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of the ’744 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Palmon, Walther, and Lu. The petition invokes §§ 102 and 103 and requests institution of review.
patent
Clean Chemistry, Inc. v.Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01472
Clean Chemistry has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of Enviro Tech’s peracetic acid generation patent, alleging obviousness over Okano and, in combination, Withenshaw and Oringer.
patent
Cruzr Saddles LLC v.Tethrd LLC
· IPR2025-01407
Cruzr Saddles LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tethrd's saddle‑hunting rope‑splice patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious based on publicly available YouTube videos and forum posts. The petition also challenges the patent’s priority date, arguing a break in continuity.
patent
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01392
Top Glory and DP Dream have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cole Haan’s 10,327,511 shoe patent, arguing that its ornamental knit‑upper features are obvious over Dua and several prior‑art references.
patent
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-01465
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging MyPort’s ’066 patent, asserting that claims 6‑17 are obvious over prior art references Spatharis, Manjunath, Fuller, and Jain. The petition seeks institution of the review to cancel the challenged claims.
patent
Klein Tools, Inc. et al. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
· IPR2026-00233
Klein Tools has filed an IPR petition challenging Milwaukee Electric’s 2023 tape‑measure patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over earlier tape‑measure patents. The petition seeks cancellation of all 12 claims.
patent
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-01466
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 6‑17 of MyPort’s ’067 patent, arguing they are obvious over Spatharis/Manjunath and Fuller/Jain. The petition requests institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the challenged claims.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.AQ Corporation
· IPR2026-00231
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corporation’s ’011 patent covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6 on obviousness grounds, citing three prior‑art combinations. No claim construction or Board decision is included in this filing.
patent
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-01464
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 6‑17 of MyPort’s ’017 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Spatharis/Manjunath and Fuller/Jain. The petition references a prior IPR that was previously instituted and settled.
patent
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
· IPR2025-01391
Terumo BCT petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details claim‑by‑claim comparisons to Takagi, Lavender, Min and others.
patent
SK hynix Inc. v.Advanced Memory Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01453
SK hynix has filed a petition for inter partes review challenging U.S. Patent 8,400,835, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior Japanese patents Murakami and Kobayashi, and U.S. patent Yu. The petition seeks to invalidate claims 1, 2, 4, and 5.
patent
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
· IPR2025-01391
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on §§ 102 and 103 and requests that the PTAB institute the review.
