US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 194 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· IPR2025-01205
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of XiFi Networks’ ’976 patent, asserting that the combination of three prior‑art references makes the claims obvious under §103.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-01211
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of the ’623 patent, arguing that dummy‑via and dual‑damascene features were anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists detailed grounds under §§102 and 103 and requests the Board to institute the review.
patent
Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
· IPR2025-01268
Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim petitions the PTAB to invalidate Regeneron’s anti‑VEGF eye‑drug patent, asserting that the Dix ’226 reference anticipates all challenged claims and that the patent owner has not shown any criticality for the claimed formulation parameters.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00018
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition against Netlist’s U.S. Patent No. 12,373,366, seeking to invalidate all 38 claims as obvious. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art patents by Perego, Harris, and Amidi covering memory‑module architecture and power‑management techniques.
patent
Dead Air Silencers et al. v.Jarvis Arms LLC
· IPR2026-00013
Dead Air Silencers has filed an IPR seeking cancellation of ten claims of Jarvis Arms’ firearm suppressor patent, arguing that the claimed features were already known in the art. The petition relies on eight obviousness grounds citing Belykov, Noonan, Muceus, Slack and Sclafani. The Board has not yet ruled.
patent
Resonac Hard Disk Corporation et al. v.MR TECHNOLOGIES GMBH
· IPR2026-00016
Resonac has filed an IPR petition against MR Technologies' 12,020,734 patent covering perpendicular magnetic recording media, asserting that the claims are obvious over Takenoiri, Fullerton, and Shen references.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01253
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition against Omni MedSci’s U.S. Patent 12,193,790, asserting that claim 7 is obvious over Lisogurski and Carlson references and should be barred by collateral estoppel.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Netlist’s 9,824,035 DDR3 memory module patent, asserting that claims 2‑9 and 14‑20 are obvious over a combination of five prior‑art references.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01245
BOE Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all nine claims of Paneltouch's 2016 touch‑panel display patent, arguing obviousness over the Nakamura and Hinata ’741 publications.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
· IPR2026-00008
Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Dynamic Mesh Networks' 8,520,691 patent covering a structured wireless mesh network. The petition alleges obviousness over five prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute a trial and cancel the claims.
patent
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2026-00007
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Malikie’s ’571 patent covering application control on electronic devices, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01250
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition against Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent, asserting that the dependent claims are obvious over prior art references Lisogurski, Carlson and Tam. They seek institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability under §103.
patent
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
· IPR2025-01194
Sarepta has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 3‑6 of Genzyme’s ’542 AAV formulation patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how Wu, Konz, Croyle, and Potter collectively disclose all claim limitations.
patent
International Business Machines Corporation v.Security First Innovations, LLC
· IPR2025-01200
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Security First Innovations’ U.S. Patent 8,271,802, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and lack of novelty. The petition outlines seven grounds covering the full claim set.
patent
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2026-00004
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate six claims of Malikie Innovations' handheld directional‑input patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01239
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’793 patent, which covers adaptive NFC‑based payment functions. The petition relies on obviousness arguments over a combination of prior‑art patents and the ISO‑14443 standard.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
· IPR2025-01189
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Hannibal IP’s ’911 patent covering PDCCH monitoring and DRX power‑saving techniques. The petition relies on Nimbalker and several 3GPP documents as prior art under §§102 and 103.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01235
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Telcom Ventures’ U.S. Patent 10,674,432, arguing they are obvious over a suite of prior‑art NFC and biometric references. The petition lists eight grounds covering the full claim set.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
· IPR2025-01187
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Hannibal IP’s 5G‑related ’896 patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over Guo, Intel, ZTE and the 5G‑Standard. The petition requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01236
Apple has filed a petition to cancel all 18 claims of Telcom Ventures' U.S. Patent 11,770,756, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds invoking 35 U.S.C. § 103 and seeks full cancellation of the patent.
patent
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01183
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 59 claims of Secure Communication Technologies' Bluetooth beacon patent, asserting obviousness over Eagle, Behrens, and Olkkonen. The petition cites prior PTAB findings and requests institution of the review.
patent
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01182
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 23 claims of Secure Communication Technologies’ ’344 Bluetooth beacon patent, alleging obviousness over Eagle, Behrens, and Olkkonen. The petition requests the PTAB to institute review and invalidate the challenged claims.
patent
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
· IPR2025-01603
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition against Brain Corporation’s 10,823,576 patent, asserting that all 36 claims are anticipated by earlier SLAM publications and obvious when combined with other robot‑mapping references.
patent
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-01219
Marvell files an IPR petition challenging Credo’s ’252 active‑cable patent, asserting that its equalization claims were already known in prior‑art active cable designs.
