US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 193 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
TikTok Inc. and Bytedance Ltd, Bytedance Pte. Ltd., Bytedance Inc., TikTok Ltd., and Heliophilia Pte. Ltd. v.DiStefano Website Innovations, LLC
· IPR2025-01224
TikTok has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 29 claims of DiStefano’s reissued ’971 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Block, Arnold, and Arora. The petition includes a detailed claim construction for “reciprocal site.”
patent
LiveIntent, Inc. v.DATONICS, LLC
· IPR2025-01318
LiveIntent has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of DATONICS’s ’445 patent on the ground of obviousness. The petition relies on the Beyda and Herz publications as prior art.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-01308
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 11,277,650. The petition argues the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references—Shindo, Sasaki, and a combination of Futa and McClellan—under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition requests that all challenged claims be found unpatentable.
patent
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-01307
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 13 claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 11,026,088, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering wireless LAN permission and connection management.
patent
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01277
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 12 claims of Advanced Coding Technologies’ 2012 media‑server patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
patent
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
· IPR2025-01287
Dell Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of Cloud Byte’s cooling‑structure patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of inter‑ partes review and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01276
Niantic filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ImagineAR’s U.S. Patent 12,070,691 covering location‑based virtual gameplay. The petition relies on obviousness over the Kolo and Zyda publications under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
· IPR2025-01286
Dell Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate nine claims of Cloud Byte’s ‘632 patent covering server‑cooling abnormality detection. The petition relies on the combination of two prior‑art references, Hira and Shiga, to argue obviousness.
patent
Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01275
Niantic has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of ImagineAR’s U.S. Patent 11,484,797, asserting obviousness over the Kolo and Zyda publications.
patent
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01228
Generac Power Systems has filed an IPR petition challenging Champion Power’s U.S. Patent 11,905,896 covering dual‑fuel generator selector switches. The petition asserts that 38 claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references and disputes the patent owner’s claim constructions. Petitioners seek cancellation of all challenged claims.
patent
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
· IPR2025-01213
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sonos’s U.S. Patent No. 10,541,883. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Cheshire, Meenan, and Spurgat under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
· IPR2026-00026
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition challenging Netskope's U.S. Patent 8,327,426, which covers federated single‑sign‑on methods. The petitioner alleges lack of novelty and obviousness based on the Hinton and Burch prior‑art references, seeking cancellation of all thirteen claims.
patent
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
· IPR2026-00027
Fortinet has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Netskope’s 7,593,936 patent, asserting that all 22 claims are anticipated or obvious over Honig, Oliphant, and Vinberg. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire claim set.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· IPR2025-01203
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Patent 11,849,337 covering a multi‑transceiver Wi‑Fi system. The challenger asserts that all 30 claims are obvious over the Chincholi and Riggert references. The petition seeks institution of the review.
patent
International Business Machines Corporation v.Security First Innovations, LLC
· IPR2025-01202
IBM filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Security First Innovations’ ’456 patent covering all‑or‑nothing encryption and data sharding. The petition relies on obviousness over prior‑art systems by Torre, Desai, Watanabe and Orsini.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01267
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Paneltouch Technologies' 11,126,025 patent covering in‑cell LCD touch panels, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Kim, Kim II and Yoshida.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01265
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s FinFET fabrication patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Xu, Lin, and Brask under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Generac Power Systems, Inc. v.PSLC LLC
· IPR2026-00023
Generac Power Systems has filed an IPR petition challenging PSLC’s ’857 patent covering backup power source load control, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier microgrid technologies such as Lasseter and Lopes.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· IPR2025-01207
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi Networks’ ’933 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of three prior‑art references covering multi‑RAT Wi‑Fi systems.
patent
Generac Power Systems, Inc. v.PSLC LLC
· IPR2026-00022
Generac Power Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 27 claims of U.S. Patent 11,967,857 covering backup‑power load control. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of four prior‑art references and defines key terms to support its position.
patent
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
· IPR2026-00020
Google has filed an IPR petition against Sonos’s 11,080,001 patent covering multi-room audio synchronization, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· IPR2025-01206
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi Networks’ Wi‑Fi bandwidth‑aggregation patent, asserting that a combination of three prior‑art references makes the claims obvious under §103.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01258
Apple Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging all six claims of Avant's ’032 patent covering location‑based presence services. The petition alleges obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01261
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 14 claims of Avant’s ’910 patent covering mobile‑device presence monitoring. The challenger relies on prior art in the form of Kraufvelin, Hashimoto, Huomo and Andersson to argue obviousness under §103.
