US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 201 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00981
Oracle has filed a petition to invalidate all 18 claims of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, asserting that the Callender reference renders the claims obvious. The petition also argues that any discretionary denial would be unwarranted.
patent
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00982
Oracle has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18 of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing obviousness over Elnozahy and Draves and a lack of written‑description support. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial, noting parallel filings by Google and Microsoft.
patent
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
· IPR2025-00987
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 37 claims of Intellectual Ventures' ’722 patent, asserting obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references covering real‑time data updates and routing networks.
patent
ROBE lighting s.r.o. v.Guangzhou Haoyang Electronic Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01016
ROBE Lighting petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 13 claims of Guangzhou Haoyang’s ‘373 patent covering a self‑testing stage light fixture, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Jurik luminaire patents.
patent
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00964
Oracle has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 ’814 patent on the ground of obviousness over Blaser, Calder and Schmidt prior art. The petition argues that each claim element is taught by the prior art and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC
· IPR2025-00950
Alliance Laundry Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of PayRange’s ‘608 patent covering offline cashless vending. The petition relies on obviousness over prior‑art retrofit devices (Breitenbach, Brown, Kaspar).
patent
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00965
Oracle has filed a petition to invalidate VirtaMove’s 7,519,814 patent covering containerized application sets, asserting that all 34 claims are obvious over prior‑art virtualization references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01025
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s ’910 clot‑removal patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· IPR2025-01020
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging Solmetex’s 2023 ‘969 Patent covering an intraoral device with mesh. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness of the claims based on earlier dental mouthpiece patents.
patent
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01008
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Palisade's ’051 memory‑card patent, asserting obviousness over Diggs, Lin, and Thorsten references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and outlines four grounds of unpatentability.
patent
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
· IPR2025-01017
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Corning's 8,642,491 glass‑substrate patent. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue that all 24 claims are either anticipated or obvious. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-00952
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Sandpiper's 8,719,886 patent covering video‑stream delivery and targeted advertising. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Acharya, Carle, Schein, Fransdonk) and cites favorable institution factors.
patent
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01009
Micron Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s U.S. Patent 9,281,314 covering NAND flash memory structures. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references—Kang, Kang‑1, Purayath, and Murata—using Phillips claim‑construction standards. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent
Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart v.Fall Line Patents, LLC
· IPR2025-00958
Instacart’s challenger Maplebear has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 3, 4 and 6‑15 of the ’748 data‑management patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs.
patent
NXP Semiconductors N .V. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2025-00954
NXP Semiconductors has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s ’886 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Okashita, Yu, and Burgener references.
patent
Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.
· IPR2025-01386
Volex has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Credo’s active Ethernet cable patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00945
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of Helsinn’s antiemetic patent (US 8,623,826) on the ground that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the asserted synergy is not unexpected.
patent
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
· IPR2025-01383
Ford Motor Company has filed a petition to institute an IPR against AutoConnect’s U.S. Patent 9,290,153 covering vehicle‑device discovery and personalization. The petition asserts that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art such as Moinzadeh, Clement, Rasin, Bosch, and Ghabra.
patent
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-01380
Red Hat has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,350,649, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references such as Kotzin and Phatak. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
· IPR2025-01383
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle infotainment patent (US 9,290,153) on the ground of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition proposes claim constructions for “daemon” and “access” and requests the Board to institute the review.
patent
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-01381
Red Hat petitions the PTAB to invalidate Competitive Access Systems’ 8,228,801 patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over earlier bandwidth‑sharing technologies. The petition relies on the Challener and Kotzin disclosures, with Held providing motivation for routing‑table features.
patent
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
· IPR2025-01365
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging VB Assets’ ’249 patent covering multimodal natural‑language responses, seeking cancellation of all 28 claims on obviousness grounds.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00936
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of the ’597 Wi‑Fi patent, asserting that the invention is obvious in view of Lee, Stacey, Zhou, and Choudhury. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
GUANGZHOU EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01369
EKO petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Nine Stars’ ’796 patent covering a power‑saving, automatically opening trash bin. The petition relies on obviousness over Chinese references Zheng and Wang, asserting that the three‑state sensor control and sensor placement are well‑known.
