US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 196 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Curium US LLC v.Universität Heidelberg et al.
· IPR2025-01582
Curium US LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against the ‘901 patent covering alpha‑emitter PSMA‑targeted therapies, arguing obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.LG Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01579
Tianma seeks an IPR to invalidate LG Display’s OLED touch‑screen patent (US 11,251,394). The petition alleges obviousness over six prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all 19 claims.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
· IPR2025-01576
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Perceptive Automata’s ’579 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art neural‑network publications and that many claim limitations are unpatentable printed matter.
patent
Apple Inc. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2025-01571
Apple, Amazon.com Services and AWS have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of Headwater Research’s ’571 patent covering secure device provisioning over wireless networks. They argue the claims are obvious over prior‑art systems from Chia, Cunningham and others.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
· IPR2025-01574
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Perceptive Automata’s ’889 patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references covering machine‑learning‑based autonomous‑vehicle control.
patent
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2025-01566
Accelight has filed an IPR petition challenging Applied Optoelectronics' 10,042,116 patent covering AWG‑based optical transceiver modules, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references.
patent
Apple Inc. v.--
· IPR2025-01572
Apple Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review of Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent No. 10,064,055, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds, each mapping specific claims to prior art such as Lundblade, Jobst, Hardjono and others.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. d/b/a MeshDynamics
· IPR2025-01569
Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Dynamic Mesh Networks’ ’385 patent covering wireless mesh networking. The challenger alleges obviousness over prior art from Castagnoli, Bohm, and Liu.
patent
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01150
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging CardWare’s ’538 patent covering mobile payment tokenization. The petition asserts that claims 19‑30 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC
· IPR2025-01552
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of PayGeo’s ’296 mobile‑payment patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Lin, Rackley, and Tumminaro prior‑art references. The petition details how each claim limitation is disclosed in the prior art and requests the Board to institute review.
patent
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01559
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s U.S. Patent 9,524,974 covering NAND flash memory structures, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds targeting all challenged claims.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01557
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display’s 7,279,708 OLED display patent. The petition argues that all asserted claims are obvious over four prior‑art references and urges the PTAB to institute the review.
patent
SHENZHEN QIANFENYI INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.Wacom Co. Ltd.
· IPR2025-01556
Shenzhen Qianfenyi (Maxeye) has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Wacom’s ’220 patent on active‑stylus communication, asserting that all challenged claims are anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references.
patent
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
· IPR2025-01548
Bose Corporation filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of IngenioSpec’s ‘518 headset patent, arguing that each claim is obvious over a series of prior‑art headset references. The petition groups the challenges into multiple obviousness grounds covering the full claim set.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01544
BOE has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of Samsung Display’s OLED pixel‑arrangement patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of earlier OLED display references.
patent
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology
· IPR2025-01546
Bio‑Rad petitions IPR to invalidate Caltech’s ’797 patent on multiplex PCR signal encoding, asserting the claims are obvious over Jouvenot and other prior art.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
· IPR2025-01541
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against One‑E‑Way’s 9,107,000 patent covering wireless digital audio systems, challenging ten claims on priority and obviousness grounds.
patent
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01539
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,668,420, asserting obviousness over multiple hydraulic fracturing references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
· IPR2025-01527
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all six claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’909 FinFET patent, asserting obviousness over Lin, Liaw, Chang, and Liu references. The petition argues that each claim element is disclosed in the prior art and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
· IPR2025-01523
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Dynamic Mesh Networks' ’952 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art such as Ganz, Srikrishna, Bishop and the IEEE 802.11 standard.
patent
Hisense USA Corp. et al. v.Light Guide Innovations LLC
· IPR2025-01526
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of Light Guide Innovations' U.S. Patent 8,408,778 covering LED backlighting technology. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of prior art references such as Asada, Kinoshita, Ashdown, Cho and Dejima. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
· IPR2025-01524
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. Patent No. 9,123,186, which covers vehicle‑access control based on user accounts. The petition asserts that all 21 claims are obvious over earlier automotive restriction systems (Gratz, Bosch, Rector, Moinzadeh). The Board is asked to institute the review.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.
· IPR2025-01520
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SnapAid’s ’702 patent on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, citing multiple prior‑art camera‑technology references.
patent
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01148
Apple has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging all 23 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent No. 10,810,579 covering mobile‑payment tokenization. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple NFC‑payment references such as Collinge, Lin, and Phillips. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
