US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 205 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01281
SanDisk has filed a petition to invalidate 42 claims of Longitude Flash’s 2022 SONOS memory patent, asserting obviousness over Lee ’255, Lee ’961, and Fujiwara. The petition details claim constructions and cites extensive prior art.
patent
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01272
Harbor Freight has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Champion Power's off‑board fuel regulator patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a §112(f) deficiency in claim 6.
patent
Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim, GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
· IPR2025-01269
Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Regeneron’s aflibercept eye‑drug patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness based on earlier clinical studies and publications.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01266
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian's 11,544,183 patent covering flash memory controllers. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks review of 14 claims.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01262
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant’s ’621 patent covering mobile‑presence monitoring, arguing that all 18 claims are obvious over prior art such as Putkiranta, Kraufvelin, Granberg, and Rachabathuni.
patent
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
· IPR2025-01242
3D Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Intrepid Automation’s ’511 patent covering DLP‑based additive manufacturing. The petition relies on five grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art references Shkolnik, Sekine, Greene, Jørgensen and Yi. The Board is asked to institute the review and not deny the petition discretionary.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01257
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant Location Technologies' ’030 patent covering mobile‑device presence monitoring. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all claims.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01249
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR seeking to invalidate Omni MedSci’s U.S. Pat. 9,055,868, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering optical diagnostic systems.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01259
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant’s ’720 patent covering location‑based tariffs and services, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01256
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 14 claims of Avant’s ’040 patent covering mobile‑station presence monitoring, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01251
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 18 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent. They argue the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and that collateral estoppel bars re‑litigation.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01246
BOE Technology files an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of Paneltouch's touch‑panel display patent, asserting obviousness over the Nakamura publication and, for claim 2, over Nakamura combined with Slobodin.
patent
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
· IPR2025-01241
3D Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑20 of Intrepid Automation’s ’301 patent covering multi‑projector DLP additive manufacturing. The petition relies on three grounds of anticipation and obviousness using prior art from Shkolnik, Sekine, and Greene.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01238
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Telcom Ventures’ U.S. Patent 11,937,172, arguing the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering NFC‑based mobile payments and biometric authentication.
patent
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-00889
GlobalFoundries has filed a petition to invalidate 19 claims of Oak IP’s U.S. Patent No. 10,090,395, asserting that prior patents Grupp ’483 and Jammy anticipate or render obvious the challenged claims covering metal‑semiconductor interface layers.
patent
Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
· IPR2025-01240
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging VB Assets’ U.S. Patent 11,080,758, asserting that all 44 claims are obvious over existing voice‑commerce technologies. The petition relies on six §103 grounds, pairing each claim set with prior‑art references such as Aretoulaki, Ramer, Kennewick, Hao and Jong.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01237
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’743 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering NFC‑based mobile payments.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01234
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Telcom Ventures’ U.S. Patent 10,219,199, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering NFC‑based mobile payments.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01165
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 14 claims of U.S. Patent 11,664,926, asserting they are obvious over the Chu standard and IEEE 802.11ax draft specifications. The petition relies on 102(a) prior art predating the critical date and seeks institution of the IPR.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC
· IPR2025-01222
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of DivX’s 10,412,141 patent covering progressive video playback. The petition asserts that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Hagai, Li, Park, Schmitz) and general POSITA knowledge.
patent
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01229
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 6 of Dialect’s ‘409 patent on dynamic speech sharpening. The challenger relies on the Bazzi paper and the Sabourin and Epstein patents to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC
· IPR2025-01223
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of DivX’s adaptive bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over Ozer, Liao, Gu, and Ronca. The petition requests the Board to institute review under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLight v.Pathway IP LLC
· IPR2025-01231
ShutterLight petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 13 claims of Pathway IP’s 7,841,729 webcam illuminator patent, asserting obviousness over eight prior‑art references.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01221
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑9 of Advanced Coding Technologies' 2010 voice‑coding patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
