US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 191 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
· IPR2025-01303
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Dynamic Mesh Networks' ’537 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art mesh networking references. The petition outlines three grounds covering the full claim set and requests the Board to institute the review.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-01313
Samsung petitions the PTAB to invalidate Maxell’s ’228 patent covering biometric unlock and communication between a smartwatch and smartphone, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition relies on six grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103, combining Aminzade with Sowers, Soli, Hong, and Altman.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
· IPR2025-01396
BOE Technology Group petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 23 claims of U.S. Patent 7,636,146, asserting that the LCD‑panel features are obvious in view of Kitawada and multiple secondary references.
patent
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01389
Google petitions an IPR to invalidate 16 claims of Telcom Ventures' 11,937,172 patent covering smartphone NFC financial transactions, asserting obviousness over Barnett, Waters, White, and Smith. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial and seeks institution of the review.
patent
CrowdStrike, Inc. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
· IPR2025-01397
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Skysong Innovations’ U.S. Patent 10,313,385. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over six prior‑art references, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition is pending before the PTAB.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2026-00050
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Headwater’s 8,631,102 patent covering mobile‑hotspot forwarding services, citing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
· IPR2025-01399
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition challenging all 11 claims of Skysong Innovations’ ’831 patent, which covers energy‑efficient CNN processing. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references and invokes 35 U.S.C. § 103. No institution decision has been made yet.
patent
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01395
Top Glory and DP Dream have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Cole Haan’s shoe‑midsole design patent (D768,969), arguing it is anticipated and obvious over several publicly available shoe designs.
patent
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01394
Top Glory and DP Dream have filed an IPR petition challenging Cole Haan’s U.S. Patent 11,041,262 covering knitted shoe uppers. They assert that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Dua, ’762, ’288, Flusser and Litke, and that ornamental features lack patentable weight.
patent
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
· IPR2025-01398
CrowdStrike has filed a petition for inter partes review of Skysong Innovations’ U.S. Patent 11,275,900, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering machine‑learning‑based cyber‑threat classification.
patent
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
· IPR2026-00042
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Netskope’s U.S. Patent 8,543,710, alleging that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Roskind, Gleichauf, and Short prior art and lack proper priority support.
patent
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
· IPR2025-01385
Volex has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Credo’s ’233 active‑cable patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Lugthart‑706, Gorecki‑617 and the IEEE 802.3‑2015 Ethernet standard.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Ginko LLC
· IPR2025-01388
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of Ginko’s U.S. Pat. 11,025,573, asserting obviousness over the Robertson and Ahuja prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims to nullify Ginko’s infringement allegations.
patent
Clean Chemistry, Inc. et al. v.Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01458
Clean Chemistry has petitioned the PTAB to cancel three claims of Enviro Tech’s peracetic‑acid generation patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over two prior‑art references. The petition details claim constructions and shows overlapping component ratios with the references.
patent
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
· IPR2025-01387
Volex has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Credo’s 11,032,111 patent, asserting that prior‑art active‑cable and adaptive‑pre‑equalization references make the claims obvious under §103.
patent
Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
· IPR2025-01379
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VB Assets’ U.S. Patent 10,755,699, which covers a method for generating natural‑language responses adapted to a user’s manner of speaking. The petition alleges obviousness over three prior‑art references—Kennewick, Cooper, and Matsuda—under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-01382
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 of Competitive Access Systems’ ’641 patent covering residential bandwidth‑aggregation gateways, arguing the claims are obvious over two prior‑art references.
patent
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-01373
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all five claims of Competitive Access Systems’ residential gateway patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on Challener, Kotzin, Ades, and Xin to demonstrate lack of novelty.
patent
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-01370
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Competitive Access Systems’ ’343 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation technologies.
patent
Generac Power Systems Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01271
Generac, Harbor Freight and MWE have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Champion Power’s dual‑fuel generator patent (U.S. 10,697,398). The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of 45 claims.
patent
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
· IPR2025-01362
Ciena Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate 22 claims of K. Mizra’s U.S. Patent 8,782,282, asserting they are obvious over prior‑art network‑management systems. The petition relies on Secer and Dinker as the combined teaching.
patent
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01264
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inari Medical’s 12,016,580 clot‑removal patent. The petition relies on Garrison and several other catheter‑related references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01263
Snap Inc. and Hisense have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Nokia’s ’714 video‑compression patent, asserting that earlier coding methods render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Meta Platform Inc. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
· IPR2025-01248
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sterling Computers' ’217 patent covering email relevance scoring. The petition relies on five obviousness grounds using Dumais, Kircher, Krug, and Marston references. No secondary considerations are asserted.
