US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 204 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01322
Union Electric has filed an IPR petition challenging 28 claims of the ’430 mercury‑removal patent, asserting lack of written description and that the claims are anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01321
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian Memory’s ’772 SSD management patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks to invalidate the claims covering zone‑based flash memory techniques.
patent
Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v.Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01319
Cytek Biosciences has filed an IPR petition challenging 14 claims of Beckman Coulter’s 2023 flow‑cytometer patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art WDM designs by Goodman and Oostman.
patent
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00947
Azurity petitions to invalidate 39 claims of Helsinn’s anti‑emetic patent, arguing the claimed netupitant/palonosetron regimen is obvious over prior art and lacks any unexpected synergy.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-01315
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 8,471,950. The petition alleges obviousness over three prior‑art references—Tsujino, Shui, and Iwasaki—across three separate grounds.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-01312
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of Maxell’s ’645 video‑processing patent. The petition relies on obviousness over the Kim and Fujimura references.
patent
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-01305
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all seven claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’572 patent covering semiconductor interconnect fabrication. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-01309
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all seven claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 7,577,417, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art clock‑control patents (Belt, Foster, Norris, Alberth) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-01310
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Maxell’s U.S. 12,160,681 patent covering a wireless video‑transmitter system. The petition relies on five grounds of anticipation and obviousness using four prior‑art references.
patent
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
· IPR2025-01288
Dell Technologies and Dell Inc. have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cloud Byte's U.S. Patent 9,651,320 covering server‑cooling fan control. The petition relies on a combination of prior art (Sato, Nakamura, Jin) to argue obviousness under §103.
patent
LiveIntent, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
· IPR2025-01317
LiveIntent petitions to invalidate 42 claims of Intent IQ’s ’398 patent, asserting that the invention is obvious in view of prior‑art profiling systems (Eldering, Banga) and IPv6 standards. The petition relies on expert testimony and RFC publications to support a §103 obviousness argument.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-01316
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of Maxell’s ’646 patent, arguing that the claimed smartphone remote‑control features are obvious over prior‑art devices such as Esaka, Guihot, Bandyopadhyay and Sharif‑Ahmadi.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
· IPR2025-01304
Cisco Systems filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 and 9‑13 of Dynamic Mesh Networks' U.S. Patent 7,885,243, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art mesh networking references.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-01314
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Maxell’s ’198 patent covering digital image playlist creation, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds, each pairing specific claim groups with combinations of earlier patents.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-01302
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of U.S. Pat. 8,884,373, asserting that the dual‑gate semiconductor device claims are obvious over Tamaki, Igarashi, and Sumi publications and their combinations. The petition argues the examiner erred by ignoring relevant prior‑art disclosures.
patent
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01289
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Radian's ’614 SSD storage patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent under 35 U.S.C. §311.
patent
Spotify AB et al. v.Tijerino, Manuel
· IPR2025-01280
Spotify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of U.S. Patent 9,146,925, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art jukebox systems and audio‑processing patents. The petition also argues against a § 314(a) or § 325(d) denial, citing favorable Fintiv factors.
patent
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01283
Sandisk has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Longitude Flash’s 2018 SONOS memory patent, seeking cancellation of 15 claims on obviousness grounds. The petition relies on Lee ’255, Lee ’961, Fujiwara, and Hwang as prior art.
patent
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01279
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering grouping of image frames in video coding. The petition asserts that claims 8‑11 are obvious over MPEG‑1 and the Kim patent, and claim 9 over MPEG‑1 combined with Yagasaki. No claim constructions are proposed.
patent
Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01274
Niantic has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 28 claims of ImagineAR’s U.S. Patent 10,946,284. The challenger relies on the Kolo and Zyda publications to argue lack of novelty and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
patent
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC
· IPR2025-01285
Dell Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Cloud Byte’s ’177 patent covering network flow tracing. The petition relies on obviousness over Rijhsinghani and combinations with RFC‑5474, Lean, and a networking textbook.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· IPR2025-01270
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi Networks’ U.S. Patent 12,114,177, asserting that all 26 claims are obvious over earlier multi‑RAT systems disclosed in Chincholi and Clegg. The petition seeks institution of the review under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01278
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging three claims of Advanced Coding Technologies' 2015 video‑compression patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art combinations involving Phek, Martins, He, and Sakazume. The petition argues the examiner never considered these combinations, seeking institution of the review.
patent
Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01273
Niantic has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of ImagineAR’s U.S. Patent No. 11,666,827, which covers location‑based virtual gameplay. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over the Kolo and Zyda references under 35 U.S.C. §103 and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
