US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 199 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01117
Union Electric has filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of BirchTech’s mercury‑control patent, asserting lack of written description and anticipation/obviousness over multiple prior art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01177
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SoundClear’s 11,244,675 patent covering voice‑controlled content generation. The petition asserts obviousness over Raitio/Fahlman and Ocampo/Fahlman combinations for claims 1‑7.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01067
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all fifteen claims of SoundClear’s ’374 patent, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering speech detection, quality evaluation, and LED feedback in two‑way radios.
patent
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01105
UPPAbaby has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Baby Jogger’s stroller‑seat attachment patent (U.S. 8,955,869) on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01096
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SoundClear’s 9,031,259 patent, alleging that the claimed speech‑processing system is obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition lists 15 grounds covering VAD, DOA, adaptive filtering and microphone‑array arrangements.
patent
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
· IPR2025-01064
Volkswagen has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Longhorn Automotive's 8,265,353 patent covering CT‑PET motion correction. The petition alleges the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Weese, Muehllehner and Wainer. No institution decision has been made yet.
patent
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· IPR2025-01175
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 25 claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition outlines eight grounds and requests institution of the review.
patent
TikTok Inc. v.DiStefano Website Innovations, LLC
· IPR2025-01061
TikTok has filed a petition to invalidate all 26 claims of DiStefano’s ’316 patent, asserting obviousness over Block, Arnold, Arora, and Ahlberg references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
patent
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01161
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of U.S. Patent 7,804,891, alleging obviousness over a combination of cellular‑standard prior art. The petition argues the examiner missed critical references and that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
patent
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01146
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging seven claims of CardWare’s ’520 patent covering contactless mobile ATM transactions. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Gill, Smith, Kay, and Gomez references under §103 and seeks institution of the review.
patent
Tesla Inc. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01035
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 16 claims of a self‑driving vehicle patent owned by Granite Vehicle Ventures. The petition alleges obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The case is pending institution.
patent
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
· IPR2025-01157
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Valtrus’s ’967 patent covering redundant power supplies. The petition relies on anticipation by Zak and obviousness over Susong, Chang, and Edelen, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
· IPR2025-01048
FreightCar America filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of U.S. Patent 8,132,515, asserting that the hopper‑car features were obvious in view of historic rail‑car literature. The petition relies on multiple early‑20th‑century references and expert testimony to demonstrate lack of novelty.
patent
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01149
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 18 claims of CardWare’s ’538 patent covering tokenized NFC payments. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references.
patent
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01126
Aerin Medical has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑30 of Neurent’s ’973 patent, arguing obviousness over Townley and Wolf‑003/Wolf‑290 disclosures. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01119
Belden, PPC Broadband, and Opterna have filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of CommScope’s ’417 fiber‑optic enclosure patent, asserting obviousness over Hogan, Walters, and Abel. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01145
Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 10,339,520, challenging all 17 claims as obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds covering the full claim set and seeks institution of the IPR.
patent
Perfect Corporation v.Zugara, Inc.
· IPR2025-01144
Perfect Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 13 claims of Zugara’s virtual‑try‑on patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art patents and CyberLink’s YouCam 3 publications.
patent
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01031
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 13 claims of BrainGuard’s helmet safety patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition details claim‑by‑claim comparisons to Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Madey, Piper and Halldin references.
patent
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01114
Snap, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nokia Technologies' U.S. Patent 8,175,148 covering video‑encoding quantization techniques. The petition asserts obviousness over MPEG‑1 and H.263 standards and requests cancellation of all 23 claims.
patent
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01123
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑5 of SoundClear’s voice‑content control patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Ocampo and Yi references. The petition requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.
patent
JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd. et al. v.First Solar, Inc.
· IPR2025-01130
JinkoSolar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of First Solar’s 9,130,074 patent, alleging lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on Tamura, Borden, Rana and combinations with Gan, Kwark, and Swanson.
patent
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
· IPR2025-01026
Geotab has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Fractus’s 11,031,677 antenna patent, arguing obviousness over Dou, Ciais‑Quadband and Nakano references and lack of written description for 4G standards.
patent
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01106
UPPAbaby has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate seven claims of Baby Jogger’s 9,403,550 stroller‑seat‑attachment patent, arguing obviousness over Liao, Stopp, Chen and Sweeney references.
