US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 207 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
· IPR2025-00870
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of VB Assets' ’699 patent covering conversational AI. The challenger relies on five pre‑2022 publications to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v.Iono Pharma, LLC
· IPR2025-00874
Aquestive Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Iono Pharma’s ‘437 patent covering sublingual/ buccal epinephrine prodrugs. The challenger relies on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Truelove patents, an academic paper, and the Almoazen paper.
patent
uPI Semiconductor Inc. v.Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00920
uPI Semiconductor petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Force MOS Technology’s 2010 trench MOSFET patent, asserting that claims 1‑5 are obvious over Bulucea combined with four other references. The petition argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution.
patent
Kangxi Communications Technologies v.Skyworks Solutions Canada, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00912
Kangxi Communications has filed an IPR petition against Skyworks’ 7,409,200 patent covering multi‑die RF front‑end modules. The challenger alleges obviousness over Garlepp and over a Magoon‑Ngompe combination. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
patent
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2025-00931
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ ’844 patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references.
patent
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01109
Element TV has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’808 video‑coding patent, alleging obviousness over the Karczewicz publication and the MPEG‑1/H.263 standards. The petition invokes 35 U.S.C. §103 for all 21 challenged claims.
patent
Evenflo Company, Inc. et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01100
Evenflo and affiliated companies have filed an IPR petition challenging Baby Jogger’s stroller patent, asserting lack of priority and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of review for claims 1‑9 and 17‑20.
patent
MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.
· IPR2025-01107
MSN Pharmaceuticals and its Indian affiliate petition PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Breckenridge’s 2021 dabigatran composition patent, arguing obviousness over Brauns combined with Leane or Sugimoto.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01111
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑18 of Wilus’s Wi‑Fi multi‑user uplink patent, arguing obviousness over Kim, Chu and Choi references and lack of written‑description support. The petition requests institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability.
patent
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01108
Element TV has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nokia’s ’808 video‑coding patent. The challenge relies on obviousness over the Karczewicz publication and the MPEG‑1/H.263 standards. The petition adopts prior Board constructions from an earlier Amazon IPR.
patent
Apple Inc. v.CText IP LLC
· IPR2025-01112
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of CText IP's messaging patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Chang, Oh, and Stochosky. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01103
Apple files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 12 claims of U.S. Patent 8,230,101 on obviousness grounds over Lamkin, Franke, Fiechter, and Ito references.
patent
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01099
Generac and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Champion Power’s ’667 dual‑fuel generator patent, alleging obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· IPR2025-01104
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists ten distinct grounds, each tying claim groups to references such as Black, Park, Baughan, Johnson, Hirsch, and Zheng.
patent
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-01098
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2 and 3 of Resonant Systems’ linear vibration module patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking cancellation of the claims.
patent
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
· IPR2025-01102
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of Pointwise Ventures’ 8,471,812 patent, alleging obviousness over Oami, Du, and Darrell references. The petition requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
patent
United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-01093
United Microelectronics has filed an IPR petition challenging ten claims of the ’076 high‑k gate dielectric patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00919
Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of the Phelan Group’s driver‑authentication patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Murphy, Arshad, Adams, Wu and Petrik references.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00903
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Apex Beam’s LTE‑MIMO patent, arguing they are obvious over three prior‑art references. The petition requests institution on a §103 ground and argues the Board should not exercise discretion to deny it.
patent
JinkoSolar Co., Ltd. et al. v.LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-00859
JinkoSolar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of LONGi’s U.S. Patent 9,515,214 covering solar battery modules. The challenger alleges obviousness over a suite of older solar‑cell references dating back to 1971. The petition requests the Board to institute review and invalidate the patent.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00909
Apple files an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s U.S. Patent 10,986,695 covering uplink cancellation signaling. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Ying, Yang, Kim and Boroujeni. Detailed technical comparisons are provided to support the unpatentability argument.
patent
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00914
Intel and AMD have filed a petition to invalidate 12,021,679, alleging that its claims are obvious over earlier MultiMATLAB publications and IBM documentation. The petition requests that the PTAB institute an IPR and cancel claims 1‑19.
patent
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01081
iRhythm Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate five claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition highlights examiner oversight and argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
patent
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00913
Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems' 11,570,034 patent on the basis of obviousness over prior‑art papers describing MultiMATLAB and related IBM documentation.
