US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 195 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01233
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’708 patent, arguing they are obvious over Carlson, ISO‑14443, Jazayeri and Birch references.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01232
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 of Telcom Ventures’ ’411 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art NFC payment systems combined with biometric authentication. Two grounds are presented, differing on the interpretation of “physiological data.”
patent
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
· IPR2025-01602
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corporation’s U.S. Patent 10,274,325 covering robotic mapping and navigation. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness of all 18 claims.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC
· IPR2025-01215
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of Vampire Labs' battery‑charging patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art (Stephens, Horowitz, and Toya) and that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The petition seeks institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
· IPR2025-01600
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corporation’s U.S. Patent 10,001,780 covering autonomous robot navigation. The petition relies on four obviousness grounds combining Beardsley, Castellanos, Khatib, and Yamamoto references. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-01220
Marvell has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Credo’s ’111 patent covering high‑speed serial‑link equalization. The challenger relies on a combination of prior‑art references that teach known equalization, preset selection, and training techniques.
patent
Apple Inc v.1LSS Inc.
· IPR2025-01180
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 11 claims of 1LSS’s magnetic‑wallet patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition relies heavily on the Board’s earlier findings and detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis.
patent
CrowdStrike, Inc. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
· IPR2025-01170
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Skysong Innovations’ ’897 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering machine‑learning‑based exploit prediction.
patent
Amazon.com, Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
· IPR2025-01167
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 40 claims of VB Assets’ ’385 patent covering voice‑enabled shopping. The petition relies on eight §103 obviousness grounds using prior art such as Li, Chen, Barnes, Kennewick and Lee.
patent
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01171
Infineon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 51 claims of MOSAID’s ’306 power‑management patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering power islands and dynamic voltage/frequency scaling. The petition follows a prior IPR that was instituted and later terminated.
patent
Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
· IPR2025-01169
Aesthetic Management Partners has petitioned the PTAB for Inter Partes Review of HydraFacial’s 9,550,052 microdermabrasion patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art devices.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01164
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 12,004,262, asserting that its four claims are obvious over several IEEE 802.11 draft and standard documents, as well as the Yang publication. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.
patent
LiveIntent, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
· IPR2025-01160
LiveIntent petitions the PTAB to invalidate AlmondNet's U.S. Patent 8,494,904 covering user profiling for targeted ads, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Robinson, Jaye, Coleman). The petition seeks institution despite anticipated Board discretion issues.
patent
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.USTA Technology, LLC
· IPR2025-01166
AT&T has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of USTA’s ’720 patent claims, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art MIMO and Wi‑Fi standards. The petition relies on Walton, IEEE 802.11a, Hamabe, and Gubbi references.
patent
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01597
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑5 of SoundClear’s ’337 patent, asserting that prior‑art references Shin, Shimomura and Kristjansson anticipate or make obvious the claimed voice‑controlled device features.
patent
International Business Machines Corporation v.Security First Innovations, LLC
· IPR2025-01201
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Security First Innovations’ data‑storage patent, asserting obviousness over Dickinson, Hardjono and Moulton references.
patent
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01151
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 27 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 11,328,286 covering a dynamic, limited‑use payment card system. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues that printed‑matter limitations lack patentable weight. The case is pending institution.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
· IPR2025-01595
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 26 claims of Massively Broadband's U.S. Patent 8,923,754, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references including Ganz, Larrick, Engels, and Perlman.
patent
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
· IPR2025-01590
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sonos’s 2018 ‘715 patent on audio‑synchronization claims, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
patent
INTELLIGENT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT CORP. v.Cisco Technology, Inc., et al.
· IPR2025-01588
Intelligent Protection Management Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Cisco’s ’293 video‑superposition patent, arguing they are obvious over the Tysso system and a GIMP user manual. The petition cites detailed expert testimony and prior‑art references to support the unpatentability argument.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
· IPR2025-01587
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’358 patent covering multiband antenna arrays. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
· IPR2025-01585
WHOOP, Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Omni MedSci’s wearable optical sensor patent (U.S. 11,160,455) on obviousness grounds, citing five prior‑art references and prior IPR findings that the same claim limitations were already deemed unpatentable.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01158
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of a video‑compression patent owned by Advanced Coding Technologies, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Phek, YuChuan, He and Martins. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. et al. v.Howmet Aerospace Inc.
· IPR2025-01581
Stanley Black & Decker has filed an IPR petition challenging Howmet Aerospace’s ’358 blind fastener patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art such as Corbett, Kleinman, and Brewer. The petition outlines four §103 grounds and seeks institution of the trial.
