US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 198 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Apple Inc. v.LS Cable & System Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01141
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all claims of LS Cable’s 8,013,568 patent covering contactless battery charging. The petition relies on multiple obviousness grounds using prior‑art references such as Baarman‑878, NCP1800, Horowitz, Veselic and Baarman‑267.
patent
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01147
Apple Inc. has filed a petition for inter partes review of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 10,628,820, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over a range of prior‑art references. The petition highlights lack of patentable weight for printed‑matter limitations and argues a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings.
patent
Liberty Energy Services LLC et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01424
Liberty Energy has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services' ’801 patent covering a mobile hydraulic fracturing power system. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over combinations of existing power‑distribution references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
patent
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01193
Microsoft has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Dialect’s ’367 patent covering natural‑language speech processing. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over Belfiore, Kennewick, and Ross prior‑art references and seeks institution of the IPR.
patent
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01421
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’432 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payments. The challenger relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
· IPR2025-01188
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Hannibal IP’s U.S. Patent 11,272,535 covering LBT failure detection in 5G UE. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple pre‑grant publications and 3GPP standards. The Board is asked to institute the review and invalidate the claims.
patent
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01423
MWE Investments and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Champion Power Equipment’s ’654 dual‑fuel generator patent, alleging obviousness and lack of structure under §§103, 102, and 112(f). The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-01129
GlobalFoundries has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of Oak IP's U.S. Patent No. 10,937,880, asserting lack of written description for the "oxide of titanium" genus and insufficient enablement of specific contact resistivity limits. The petition relies on Grupp’483 for anticipation and Jammy for obviousness.
patent
Guangzho EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. (aka EKO Development Ltd.) et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc.
· IPR2025-01191
Petitioner EKO seeks IPR of Nine Stars’ 10,822,165 B2 automatic trash‑can patent, asserting that a 2014 Chinese filing (Wang) anticipates and makes obvious all 24 claims. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01127
Aerin Medical seeks IPR cancellation of Neurent’s ’974 nasal neuromodulation patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over Townley, Wolf‑003/Wolf‑290, and the Angeles console.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
· IPR2025-01190
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 1‑16 of Hannibal IP’s 5G beam‑management patent (US 11,641,661). The petition relies on Guo, Intel’s 3GPP proposal, and the 5G‑Standard to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Evenflo Company, Inc. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01140
Evenflo has filed an IPR petition challenging Baby Jogger’s stroller patent (US 11,577,771). The petition attacks priority and asserts obviousness over five prior‑art references covering claims 1‑15. The case is pending institution by the PTAB.
patent
CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01179
CentralSquare Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Carbyne’s emergency video‑streaming patent, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over two earlier patents. The petition seeks institution of an IPR under §§102 and 103.
patent
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01125
Aerin Medical seeks IPR cancellation of Neurent's U.S. Patent 12,089,889 covering a nasal neuromodulation device, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references and lack of written description.
patent
American Fuji Seal, Inc. et al. v.Brook & Whittle Ltd.
· IPR2025-01176
American Fuji Seal has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Brook + Whittle’s 2024 recyclable shrink label patent, asserting obviousness over Schurr and over Kitano combined with Lee.
patent
Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01095
Petitioner Baby Generation seeks to invalidate claims 1‑17 and 19‑22 of Baby Jogger’s ’231 stroller patent, alleging lack of support for the “substantially parallel” limitation and obviousness over three prior‑art combinations.
patent
United Therapeutics Corporation v.Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01139
United Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 57 claims of Actelion’s ’847 patent covering macitentan‑PDE5 inhibitor combinations for pulmonary hypertension. The petition alleges anticipation by Bolli and obviousness over Bolli‑Keyser and Hoeper‑Morice references, arguing that secondary considerations are irrelevant.
patent
Viant Technology LLC et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
· IPR2025-01163
Viant Technology and LiveIntent petition PTAB to invalidate AlmondNet's 2015 ad‑targeting patent, arguing obviousness over Burdick and a Burdick‑Grannan combination. The petition seeks institution of the IPR.
patent
Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01120
Petitioner Baby Generation seeks IPR cancellation of Baby Jogger’s stroller patent, arguing lack of support for a “parallel” feature and obviousness over multiple prior‑art stroller designs.
patent
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.L'AIR LIQUIDE, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME POUR L'ETUDE ET L'EXPLOITATION DES PROCÉDÉS GEORGES CLAUDE
· IPR2025-01174
Topsoe has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Air Liquide’s 2023 hydrogen‑production patent, alleging that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references including Martin, Rafati, Gauthier and Terrien.
patent
Evenflo Company, Inc. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01122
Evenflo has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of Baby Jogger’s stroller patent, asserting lack of priority and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims.
patent
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01121
Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE petition the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of Champion Power’s multi‑fuel engine patent, citing extensive prior‑art references. The petition argues anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103 and seeks institution of the IPR.
patent
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01118
Union Electric has filed a petition to invalidate BirchTech’s 10,343,114 mercury‑removal patent, asserting lack of written description and obviousness over multiple prior art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑30.
patent
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01185
MWE Investments, Harbor Freight and Generac have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Champion Power Equipment’s dual‑fuel lockout switch patent, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references and that key claim terms lack proper structure.
