US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 192 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01260
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant’s ’922 patent covering mobile‑device presence monitoring, asserting that all 16 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art location‑service references.
patent
Ciena Corporation v.K.Mizra LLC
· IPR2025-01364
Ciena has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,735,320, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art MPLS technologies disclosed in Murphy, Taguchi, and Booth. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01254
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs.
patent
Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.
· IPR2025-01360
Zesty.ai has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 11,030,491. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Gross publication alone or in combination with Furukawa or Davis, asserting that the invention merely applies conventional image‑processing and machine‑learning techniques.
patent
Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.
· IPR2025-01358
Zesty.ai has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 10,529,029, alleging obviousness over the Gross, Davis, and Furukawa references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.
· IPR2025-01357
Zesty.ai filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 10,650,285, arguing the claims are obvious over the Gross publication (and Gross + Davis for claim 8) under §103. The petition includes an expert declaration supporting unpatentability.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01368
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate six claims of SoundClear’s 9,223,487 patent covering pinch‑to‑select gestures, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
· IPR2025-01366
Fresh Products, LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of Sanastar’s U.S. Patent 10,294,649 covering a urinal anti‑splash device, arguing obviousness over Fushimi, Brown ’098, Brown ’394, Valadez and Wise references.
patent
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01352
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 42 of Dialect’s ’659 patent, asserting lack of written description support and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review to invalidate the claim.
patent
Zesty.ai, Inc. v.Aon Re, Inc.
· IPR2025-01359
Zesty.ai has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Aon Re’s U.S. Patent 11,195,058, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Gross publication and other prior art.
patent
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01351
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of Dialect’s 2008 speech‑interface patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01350
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian Memory’s ’801 patent covering SSD metadata and maintenance functions. The petition asserts obviousness over several prior‑art references and seeks a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims.
patent
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
· IPR2025-01353
Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory’s ’510 DNA‑sequencing patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over the Lo application and other prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds covering 30 claims and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
patent
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01349
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 14 claims of Telcom Ventures' smartphone payment patent, alleging obviousness over four prior art references.
patent
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
· IPR2025-01346
BPI Labs has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Eli Lilly’s 9,474,780 patent covering GLP‑1/GIP co‑agonist peptides. The petition relies on obviousness over three prior‑art references (Alsina‑Fernandez, DiMarchi, Lau). No secondary considerations are alleged.
patent
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01345
Snap Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Nokia’s ’701 video‑coding patent, asserting obviousness over Murashita, Marpe, and Yu. The petition targets all 20 claims and seeks their cancellation.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01252
Samsung and co‑petitioners seek an IPR of Omni MedSci’s ’455 wearable health‑monitoring patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art and that earlier IPR findings estop re‑litigation. They request the Board institute the proceeding.
patent
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01336
Meta Platforms has filed a petition for inter partes review of Dialect’s ’825 patent covering speech‑recognition methods, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01332
Meta Platforms has filed a petition to invalidate Dialect’s 8,447,607 patent covering multimodal speech processing. The challenger relies on Maes, Coffman and Ittycheriah references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 and urges the Board to institute the IPR.
patent
BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD. v.Bishop Display Tech LLC
· IPR2025-01331
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Bishop Display Tech’s LED driver patent (U.S. 8,093,830). The petition asserts that prior art references Ghanem, Nishimura, and Tripathi render all five claims obvious under §103. The Board is asked to institute the review and find the claims unpatentable.
patent
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01335
Meta Platforms has filed a petition for inter partes review of Dialect’s U.S. Patent 8,015,006, targeting claims 5 and 6. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art speech‑recognition references. The petition seeks institution of the review.
patent
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01333
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Dialect’s 9,263,039 patent covering multimodal speech processing, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior patents Maes and Ross.
patent
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
· IPR2025-01339
Fresh Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Sanastar’s urinal anti‑splash patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier splash‑prevention devices such as Fushimi, Brown, Valadez, and Wise.
patent
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
· IPR2025-01284
Dell Technologies and Dell Inc. have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 27 claims of Cloud Byte’s ’249 patent covering packet‑forwarding nodes. The petition relies on the Shimizu patent application and the BGP‑4 standard (RFC‑4271) as prior art to argue obviousness.
