US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 200 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01110
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of U.S. Patent 11,716,171, which covers a wireless terminal for multi‑user uplink transmission. The petition asserts obviousness over the Kim, Chu, and Choi publications and argues lack of written description support. Samsung seeks institution of the review and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.
patent
United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-01091
United Microelectronics Corp. (UMC) has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC's 8,198,686 patent, asserting obviousness over Aoyama, Akasaka, and Hsu823 prior art.
patent
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
· IPR2025-01086
Orca Security has filed a petition to invalidate Wiz’s ’549 patent covering AI‑driven cybersecurity incident response. The challenger alleges obviousness over prior art combining a 2022 cybersecurity system (Peters) with a 2024 LLM‑focused disclosure (Lal). The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.
patent
Netskope, Inc. v.K.Mizra LLC
· IPR2025-01115
Netskope has filed a petition to institute an IPR against K.Mizra’s 8,234,705 patent, asserting that its network‑quarantine claims are obvious over three prior‑art references.
patent
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01393
Top Glory and DP Dream have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cole Haan's 10,443,163 patent covering knitted shoe uppers, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
· IPR2025-01084
Orca Security Ltd. has filed a petition for inter partes review of Wiz’s U.S. Patent 11,929,896, asserting that claims 1‑29 are obvious over three prior‑art patents. The petition includes a joint claim construction for “imputed entity” and seeks institution of the IPR under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
· IPR2025-01085
Orca Security Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of Wiz’s U.S. Patent 11,936,693, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Calvo, Nguyen, and Datsenko under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01082
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of Marlin’s 6,888,181 FinFET triple‑gate patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
patent
United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-01092
United Microelectronics Corporation has filed an IPR petition challenging fourteen claims of the ’180 patent covering high‑k gate dielectric MOSFET structures. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over several pre‑2005 publications, invoking 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· IPR2025-01065
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging Solmetex’s 11,826,217 dental mouthpiece patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior patents by Nguyen, Black, and Hirsch. The petition requests institution and cancellation of claims 1‑11 and 13‑23.
patent
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
· IPR2025-01089
Nissan has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Longhorn’s 2009 internal‑combustion‑engine patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over several Japanese utility models and patents.
patent
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
· IPR2025-01072
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Evolution Malta’s U.S. Patent No. 11,011,014 covering a roulette‑based wagering system. The petition relies on prior art references Kido, Yee, and Baron to argue anticipation and obviousness, and cites a district‑court finding of invalidity under Alice.
patent
Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc. v.Quanterix Corp.
· IPR2025-01060
Fujirebio Diagnostics petitions to invalidate Quanterix’s 2022 patent on tau‑protein blood assays, asserting that the method is obvious over existing single‑molecule array publications and an earlier tau‑diagnostic patent. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel the challenged claims.
patent
United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-01076
United Microelectronics Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate five claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s 7,579,227 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness based on multiple high‑k gate dielectric references.
patent
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· IPR2025-01057
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Solmetex’s 2023 intraoral mouthpiece patent, arguing obviousness over five prior‑art references.
patent
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
· IPR2025-01073
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition challenging Evolution Malta’s ’024 roulette‑payout patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Kido, Yee, and Baron prior art.
patent
United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-01053
United Microelectronics Corp. has filed a petition to invalidate five claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’779 patent, alleging anticipation by Torii and obviousness over Gilmer and Chen. The petition relies on pre‑AIA §§102 and 103 grounds.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00991
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑10 of U.S. Patent 8,090,025, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art video‑coding references. The petition relies on Mualla, Shirani, Saito, Stockhammer, and Shimizu to demonstrate lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-01001
Oracle has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 container‑technology patent, arguing the claims are obvious over existing container systems such as VServer, Solaris Zones, and Zap pods.
patent
Solventum Corporation v.Wound Healing Technologies Corp.
· IPR2025-01042
Solventum Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 13 claims of Wound Healing Technologies' wound‑dressing patent. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Argenta, Hu, Biggie and Lockwood.
patent
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
· IPR2025-01055
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines petition the PTAB to invalidate Intellectual Ventures' 8027326 patent covering Wi‑Fi channel bonding, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Gardner and Mori.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
· IPR2025-00994
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,621,360, asserting that the claims covering microstructured photodetectors are obvious over prior art such as Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1,3,5‑6,8‑9.
patent
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01000
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all 11 claims of Advanced Coding Technologies' video‑coding patent, asserting obviousness over a set of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-01041
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’488 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art CDN technologies. The petition lists multiple grounds under §103 and requests the Board to institute the trial.
