US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 203 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00900
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 5G multi‑antenna patent, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00904
Apple Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s ’904 patent covering multi‑antenna transmission. The petitioner asserts the claims are obvious over the Kim and Chen disclosures and seeks institution of the review.
patent
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-00973
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Telcom Ventures' NFC‑based mobile payment patent (U.S. 9,462,411) on obviousness grounds, relying on the Jain and Dua publications. The petition argues that all claim elements were known in the art before the patent’s filing date.
patent
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-00972
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’199 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payments. The petition asserts obviousness over the Jain and Dua publications and cites lack of commercial success. A stipulation limits further district‑court litigation if the review is instituted.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00901
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 11,374,721 patent covering grant‑free uplink transmission, citing Lee, Freda and Ly as obviousness prior art.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00898
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 10,951,271 patent covering multi‑antenna transmission, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art disclosures by Kim and Chen.
patent
BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD. v.Bishop Display Tech LLC
· IPR2025-01330
BOE Technology Group petitions the PTAB to invalidate ten claims of Bishop Display Tech’s OLED driver patent, asserting that prior art references Baek, Date, Inomoto, and Sasaki anticipate or render the claims obvious. The petition argues the examiner overlooked these references and that no secondary considerations support patentability.
patent
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-01329
Hisense has filed a petition to invalidate VideoLabs' 2010 picture coding patent, asserting that the sole claim is obvious over a 2002 Nokia (Karczewicz) publication combined with H.324 and H.263 standards. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of claim 1.
patent
Google LLC v.Bootler, LLC
· IPR2025-00967
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Bootler’s ’683 patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues no discretionary denial applies and that the prior art was not cited during prosecution.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings LLC
· IPR2025-00899
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of GenghisComm’s ’386 OFDM patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Shattil‑537, Galda, Brüninghaus and Dowling.
patent
Google LLC v.Bootler, LLC
· IPR2025-00968
Google has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate all 17 claims of Bootler’s food‑delivery data‑aggregation patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
patent
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.--
· IPR2025-01327
Reolink Innovation filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of its ’655 peer‑to‑peer searching system patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness based on five prior‑art publications. The petition enumerates eight grounds covering §§102 and 103, mapping each claim to the cited references.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00897
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 20‑claim LTE‑MIMO patent, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of all claims.
patent
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00966
Oracle has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent covering shared‑library implementations. The petition relies on prior‑art references that allegedly anticipate every claim element.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00895
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Apex Beam’s U.S. Patent 10,568,113 covering LTE beam‑failure recovery. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over Xia, Jover, 3GPP‑LTE and Yi references under §103 and requests institution of the IPR.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00894
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 2019 patent covering paging methods in LTE/5G networks, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art standards and patents. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00896
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 2021 LTE beam‑switching patent. The petition relies on the Chen patent combined with 3GPP standards and the Dahlman textbook to argue obviousness of all twelve claims under §103.
patent
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
· IPR2025-00959
Carbyne petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tritech’s RE50016 reissued patent covering emergency call text messaging. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references—Brooks, SARLOC, Salafia, and Marr—asserting that the claimed system was well‑known. It seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
patent
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
· IPR2025-00893
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Nivagen’s ’076 patent covering lyophilized phenobarbital sodium formulations. The petition alleges obviousness over PIF, Parker, and West‑Ward references and anticipation/obviousness by the ’608 Publication, and challenges the patent’s priority date and written description support.
patent
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00948
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Helsinn’s U.S. Patent 9,943,515 covering netupitant‑based anti‑emetic regimens, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art combinations and lack secondary considerations.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
· IPR2025-00953
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of Hermes IP’s ’060 patent covering location‑based services for camera phones, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01323
Union Electric has filed an IPR petition challenging 25 claims of the ’225 patent covering mercury removal from coal‑flue gas. The petition alleges lack of written description and asserts that six prior‑art references anticipate or render the claims obvious. Institution of the IPR is sought.
patent
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01324
Union Electric Company has filed an IPR petition challenging MES’s 10,933,370 patent on mercury‑removal methods, asserting lack of written description and obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑6, 8, 11, 14‑15.
patent
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
· IPR2025-01325
Capital One seeks IPR of Wapp Tech’s 2014 patent covering mobile photo‑editing apps, arguing the ten claims are obvious over prior art such as Lee, Jiang, Tran, and Poulin‑910.
