US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 189 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Nov 22, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2025-00065
Samsung seeks IPR cancellation of SiOnyx’s 44‑claim image‑sensor patent, arguing that prior‑art references Alie, Baggenstoss, Haddad204 and Park make the claims obvious and that institution should not be denied under § 314(a).
patent · Nov 22, 2024
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00227
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. The denial upheld prior decisions that had not instituted trials on the challenged patents.
patent denied · Nov 22, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2025-00161
The PTAB denied Samsung Electronics' request to institute an IPR against SiOnyx, LLC's patent 11,721,714 B2. The Board relied on the Fintiv factors, concluding that the existing parallel ITC and District Court litigation favored denying institution.
patent denied · Nov 22, 2024
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
· IPR2025-00133
Shopify's IPR challenge against DKR Consulting was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited a district court ruling that found all challenged claims invalid under Section 101, prioritizing administrative efficiency.
patent denied · Nov 22, 2024
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
· IPR2025-00132
The PTAB denied Shopify Inc.'s request to institute IPR against DKR Consulting LLC's '995 patent. The denial was based on administrative efficiency, as a District Court had already ruled all challenged claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
patent denied · Nov 22, 2024
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
· IPR2025-00131
The PTAB denied Shopify's IPR against DKR Consulting's patent, citing administrative efficiency because a district court had already found all the challenged claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
patent denied · Nov 22, 2024
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
· IPR2025-00130
The PTAB denied Shopify's IPR petition against DKR Consulting, citing a District Court ruling that invalidated all challenged claims under Section 101, prioritizing administrative efficiency.
patent denied · Nov 22, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2025-00065
Samsung Electronics' IPR challenge against SiOnyx, LLC was denied by the PTAB due to significant overlap with parallel district court litigation. The Board exercised its discretion under Fintiv guidance, prioritizing efficiency over the merits of the invalidity arguments.
patent denied · Nov 22, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2025-00064
The PTAB denied Samsung Electronics' IPR petition against SiOnyx, LLC due to significant overlap with a parallel district court case. The Board found that the proximity of the trial date and overlapping issues outweighed the Petitioner’s strong merits arguments regarding anticipation and obviousness in semiconductor technology.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 22, 2024
Mundra Solar PV Ltd. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00187
The PTAB found all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, concluding that the combination of prior art references was sufficient to teach the claimed solar cell structure. This decision validates the Petitioner's arguments regarding obviousness in photovoltaic technology.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 22, 2024
Mundra Solar PV Ltd. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00186
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 11 challenged claims of the solar cell patent were obvious over prior art references. The Board credited the petitioner's evidence, concluding that an ordinary artisan would have combined Chang and Jin to achieve the claimed isolation features with reasonable success.
patent denied · Nov 21, 2024
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00218
The PTAB denied Tesla's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2025-00218, leaving the original denial in place.
patent · Nov 21, 2024
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00218
Tesla has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction of its LTE signaling patent, arguing the Board relied on invented drawings rather than the specification. The petition seeks reversal of the decision and institution of the trial under a proper construction.
patent denied · Nov 21, 2024
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00218
Tesla’s request for Director Review of IPR2025-00218 was denied. The Board affirmed its original claim construction, finding the patent’s language requires a one-to-one correspondence between bits and time intervals, and rejected Tesla’s untimely new arguments.
patent · Nov 21, 2024
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
· IPR2025-00225
Globus Medical has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of eleven claims of Spinelogik's spinal fusion patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Blain, Bray, and Steffee references.
patent · Nov 21, 2024
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
· IPR2025-00226
Globus Medical has filed a petition for inter partes review of Spinelogik’s U.S. Patent 8,460,385 covering a spinal fusion device. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art implants (Moskowitz, Hess) and a combination with Steffee’s curved fasteners, and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑5, 7 and 9.
patent · Nov 21, 2024
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00218
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑12 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’416 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Kim, Vayanos) and the applicant‑admitted background. The petition also contests any discretionary denial by the Board.
patent instituted · Nov 21, 2024
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
· IPR2025-00226
Globus Medical successfully navigated the PTAB institution phase against Spinelogik regarding spinal fusion implants. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness over Moskowitz and Steffee for several key claims.
patent instituted · Nov 21, 2024
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
· IPR2025-00225
Globus Medical successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Spinelogik's spinal fusion implant patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Blain. This decision advances the dispute into active trial proceedings.
patent denied · Nov 21, 2024
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00218
Tesla, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding cellular network resource allocation claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Tesla failed to meet the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 20, 2024
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00202
Liberty Mutual and patent‑owner Intellectual Ventures have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑00202 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,332,844.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 20, 2024
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
· IPR2025-00201
Liberty Mutual and Intellectual Ventures settled their inter partes review disputes over three patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before institution. The settlement agreements were ordered confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 20, 2024
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
· IPR2025-00200
Liberty Mutual and Intellectual Ventures have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,407,722 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
patent terminated or settled · Nov 20, 2024
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00202
Liberty Mutual and Intellectual Ventures reached a settlement that terminated three inter partes review proceedings before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the parties' motions to dismiss and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
