US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 197 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
American Airlines et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
· IPR2025-01510
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Intellectual Ventures' 802.11 dual‑mode communication patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Luxottica of America Inc. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
· IPR2025-01512
Luxottica has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of e‑Vision’s ’612 smart‑eyewear patent, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier Bluetooth headset and voice‑assistant disclosures such as Howell, Gruber, Jannard‑740, and Osterhout.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01499
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's 9,299,730 OLED display patent. The petition argues that all 19 claims are obvious over six prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
patent
Apple Inc. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS LLC,
· IPR2025-01497
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Cobblestone Wireless’s 2011 patent covering simultaneous transmission over multiple RF frequencies, asserting obviousness over Rofougaran and Shearer references.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01498
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Samsung Display's OLED‑related patent (US 10,720,483), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution under §325(d) or Fintiv.
patent
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01154
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging all 36 claims of Nokia’s ’267 patent on the ground of obviousness, relying on two prior‑art video‑coding applications (Karczewicz‑I and II). The petition argues that the combination of these references teaches the same higher‑precision motion‑prediction techniques.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01483
BOE Technology filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Paneltouch's 2016 touchscreen display patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01487
Infineon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of MOSAID’s ’381 flash memory patent, asserting obviousness over the Grundy and Kilbuck references. The petition includes a detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis and an expert declaration.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01482
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Paneltouch Technologies' 8,704,762 display device patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references covering crack‑detection wiring in touch and display panels.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01481
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's U.S. Patent 10,013,088 covering an integrated OLED touchscreen. The petition asserts that all 13 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Chen, Jang, Sano, and Sakamoto. BOE seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01476
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of Samsung Display’s 10,541,279 B2 OLED touch‑screen patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on 35 U.S.C. §103 and lists eight ground combinations covering the entire claim set.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01477
BOE Technology Group petitions to invalidate Samsung Display’s 11,500,496 OLED touchscreen patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious combinations of prior‑art OLED and touch‑sensor technologies.
patent
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-01467
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MyPort’s ’998 patent covering media capture, encryption, and remote storage. The petition relies on Vataja, Cox, and Hershey references to argue obviousness of all 14 claims.
patent
Citrix Systems, Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra LLC
· IPR2025-01468
Citrix and Cloud Software Group have filed a petition to invalidate K.Mizra’s network‑security patent, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over established prior‑art combinations.
patent
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01463
Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Champion Power Equipment's 11,840,970 dual‑fuel generator patent. The petition alleges obviousness over numerous prior‑art references and challenges the claim language as means‑plus‑function under §112(f).
patent
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01153
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s U.S. Patent 10,536,714 covering motion‑vector prediction methods. The petition asserts obviousness over earlier video‑coding publications (Rusert, Karczewicz, Lin) and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑30. The case is pending institution.
patent
SK hynix Inc. v.Advanced Memory Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01449
SK hynix has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of five claims of U.S. Patent 8,593,888 covering flash‑memory voltage regulation, alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior patents such as Tomita, Im, Nam, and Nakayama.
patent
Clean Chemistry, Inc. et al. v.Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01459
Clean Chemistry petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of Enviro Tech’s peracetic‑acid patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑3 under §§ 102 and 103.
patent
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.CASALE SA
· IPR2025-01454
Topsoe has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑11 and 17‑19 of Casale’s U.S. Patent 11,286,168. The petition argues that the claims are anticipated or obvious over a collection of prior‑art references, especially a 2007 IFA presentation and several earlier patents. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
· IPR2025-01444
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging Marlin Semiconductor’s U.S. 7,547,584 patent covering dummy openings for charge‑damage reduction in dual‑damascene processing. The petition asserts obviousness over six prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6.
patent
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01443
Voltage, LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Shoals Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,015,375 covering photovoltaic lead assemblies. The petition alleges obviousness over Machida and combinations with Solon and Kim, and asks the Board to adopt ITC claim constructions.
patent
Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.
· IPR2025-01435
Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition challenging Guardant Health’s ’916 patent covering cfDNA‑based microsatellite instability detection. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of Schmitt, Forshew, Porreca, and Sacko references.
patent
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01440
Snap Inc. and Hisense have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Nokia’s ’808 video‑coding patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over earlier video standards. The petition relies on §103 and cites Karczewicz, MPEG‑1, and H.263 as prior art.
patent
Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01433
Excelliance Mos Corporation has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Force MOS Technology’s 7,629,634 trench MOSFET patent, asserting that all nine claims are obvious over the Hshieh and Uno prior‑art references.
