US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 202 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-01372
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Competitive Access Systems' broadband communications device patent, asserting obviousness over Kotzin and Challener references.
patent
Tesla Inc. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-00943
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of a self‑driving vehicle patent owned by Granite Vehicle Ventures, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-01371
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4,7,8‑12, and 17 of U.S. Patent 10,868,908, alleging obviousness over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references Kotzin and Phatak, alone or combined with Peirce, Held, or Decasper.
patent
Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH
· IPR2025-01367
Albany International petitions to invalidate Voith Patent's 2018 paper‑machine fabric patent, asserting that the claimed outside‑placed sheet plies are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
· IPR2025-01355
Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Cold Spring Harbor’s ’589 patent covering DNA‑tagging methods for copy‑number analysis, asserting the claims are obvious over Lo and other prior art. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00935
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of the ’163 Wi‑Fi patent, asserting they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering BSS‑color techniques. The petition seeks institution under 35 U.S.C. §103 and argues PTAB discretion should not block the review.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00921
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 5G beam‑failure‑recovery patent, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier Liu and Jover disclosures. The petition requests the PTAB to institute review and cancel the patent.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00933
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,470,595, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art Wi‑Fi standards such as Josiam, Seok, Chen and Wu. The petition relies on the bandwidth field in HE‑SIG‑A and the common field in HE‑SIG‑B to show lack of novelty.
patent
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
· IPR2025-00928
Geotab seeks to invalidate 44 claims of FRACTUS’s 8,456,365 antenna patent, arguing that the Tran and Teng references make the claims obvious. The petition details claim constructions and argues against discretionary denial of institution.
patent
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
· IPR2025-00929
Geotab petitions the PTAB to institute IPR on FRACTUS’s 8,810,458 patent covering antenna placement in portable devices, asserting that the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition argues both §103 obviousness and §102 prior‑art grounds and challenges any discretionary denial of institution.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00923
Apple files an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 11,626,904 patent on multi‑antenna transmission, asserting obviousness over Liu, Park, and Ng references.
patent
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
· IPR2025-00925
Volkswagen has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Longhorn Automotive’s 8,085,192 patent covering vehicle location data storage. The petition relies on prior‑art references Fish, Ziv, Gehlot and Stevenson to argue obviousness under § 103.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00922
Apple Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Apex Beam’s multi‑antenna transmission patent, asserting obviousness over Liu and Park publications. The petition details a predictable combination of prior‑art teachings and argues against discretionary denial.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00908
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 5G semi‑persistent scheduling patent, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Fakoorian‑1, Fakoorian‑2, and Takahashi. The petition presents three §103 grounds and seeks institution of the review.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00907
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 5G NR downlink control information patent, asserting that all claims are obvious over 3GPP standards and the Zhang patent.
patent
FLSmidth Inc. v.Metso Finland Oy (formerly known as Metso Outotec (Finland) Oy)
· IPR2025-00985
FLSmidth has filed an IPR petition challenging all 26 claims of Metso's fluid‑bearing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner erred by not fully evaluating the combination of GB384, DE364 and other patents.
patent
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00916
Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems' high‑performance computing patent, alleging obviousness over earlier MultiMATLAB papers and IBM documentation.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00906
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate Apex Beam's 5G scheduling patent, asserting obviousness over 3GPP standards.
patent
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-00976
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’743 patent covering NFC‑based smartphone payments. The petition argues the claims are obvious over earlier Jain and Dua publications and asserts no discretionary denial should apply.
patent
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01334
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1,4,6‑9 of U.S. Patent 7,398,209, alleging obviousness over multiple speech‑recognition and natural‑language prior arts. The petition lists five grounds invoking 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00911
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Apex Beam’s 5G beam‑failure patent (U.S. 11637615). The challenger alleges obviousness over Cirik, Wu and InterDigital references, covering all 16 claims. The petition requests institution and argues no discretionary denial is warranted.
patent
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-00978
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’793 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payments. The petition relies on two prior‑art references, Jain and Dua, to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. No claim constructions or board decisions are present yet.
patent
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00989
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical's 11,865,291 patent covering hemostasis valves. The petitioner asserts anticipation and obviousness based on Schaffer and its combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00915
Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of ACS’s ’621 patent covering parallel MATLAB execution on computer clusters, asserting obviousness over earlier Cornell publications and IBM documentation.
