US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 208 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
· IPR2025-00869
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging VB Assets' U.S. Patent 8,886,536, which covers voice‑based advertising. The petition alleges that 55 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, invoking 35 U.S.C. §103. The Board has yet to rule.
patent
United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-01090
United Microelectronics Corporation has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of U.S. Patent 8,907,425, which covers stress‑relief structures for MISFETs. The petitioner asserts that combinations of known prior‑art references make the claims obvious under §103. No claim construction is required, and the petition seeks institution of the review.
patent
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-00846
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sandpiper CDN’s 8,595,778 patent covering video‑stream authorization, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01080
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of seven claims of SoundClear’s ’819 patent covering volume‑lock functionality in audio devices. The petition relies on prior‑art references Kajiyama, Shure, and Nelson to argue obviousness under §103.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Quicker Connections LLC
· IPR2025-01088
Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑12 of Quicker Connections’ U.S. Patent 7,061,859 covering fault‑protection methods in bidirectional ring networks. The petition relies on the Japanese Omichi publication as obviousness prior art and argues that a discretionary denial would be improper given related litigation.
patent
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
· IPR2025-01087
Orca Security has filed a petition for IPR against Wiz’s AI‑cloud security patent, contending that the claims are obvious over existing cloud‑scanning (Shua) and AI‑analysis (Lang) references.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
· IPR2025-00866
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 36 claims of VB Assets’ ’681 patent covering a cooperative conversational voice interface. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including SmartKom, Kobsa, Barbara, Ross, O’Neill and Franco.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
· IPR2025-00867
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 52 claims of VB Assets’ voice‑advertising patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition cites §§102(b/e) and prior claim constructions to support unpatentability.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-00864
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Marlin Semiconductor’s FinFET patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations. The petition stresses the parallel ITC case and TSMC’s strong institution record. No claim construction is raised at this stage.
patent
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v.Klein Tools, Inc.
· IPR2025-00892
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Klein Tools' 11,713,209 patent covering luminescent fish tape systems, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition challenges all 18 claims and seeks cancellation.
patent
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
· IPR2025-01083
Orca Security has filed a petition for inter partes review of Wiz’s U.S. Patent 11,722,554, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art patents by Shivamoggi, Zhong, and Woolward. The petition lists three grounds covering 19 claims and requests the Board to institute the review.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00905
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Apex Beam’s paging patent (U.S. 11,917,581). The petition alleges obviousness over Yeo, 3GPP TS 36.304, and Mallick references and argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
patent
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-00806
Google LLC has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s ’517 patent covering a GUI‑based DNS policy system. The petition argues the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references and that the examiner never considered these references. Institutional factors are presented to favor instituting the review.
patent
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00852
Microsoft filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 11 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over early‑2000s container technologies such as Linux VServer, Solaris Zones, and Zap pods.
patent
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-00834
Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Credo’s ’252 active Ethernet cable patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art combinations and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00816
ClearCorrect seeks an IPR of Align’s 11,369,456 patent covering clear‑aligner treatment‑plan software. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute review and invalidate claims 1‑19.
patent
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
· IPR2025-00887
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Pantech’s U.S. Patent 8,995,372, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references covering carrier‑aggregation random access.
patent
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00853
Microsoft has filed a petition to invalidate 18 claims of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, alleging obviousness over the Callender patent. The petition argues that Callender is prior art under §102(e) and renders the claims unpatentable under §103.
patent
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00850
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s 7,519,814 patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
· IPR2025-00888
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight Pantech LTE‑muting claims, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Chandrasekhar‑I, Chandrasekhar‑II, and TI standards.
patent
Amazon Web Services, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2025-00884
Amazon Web Services seeks to invalidate Croga Innovations’ 10,601,780 patent on network isolation, arguing that decades‑old firewall and virtualization techniques render the claims obvious. The petition cites the 2004 Nazario book and the 2010 Ghosh patent as prior art.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-00848
TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to invalidate Marlin Semiconductor's FinFET patent, arguing that the claims are obvious in view of multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR covering claims 1‑12.
patent
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2025-00845
Apple and Sony have filed a petition to invalidate SiOnyx’s 83‑claim image‑sensor patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over a broad set of prior‑art references. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim mappings and argues that the Board should institute the IPR.
patent
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
· IPR2025-00885
ADC Solutions Auto LLC has filed a petition to institute an IPR against The Noco Company's portable jump‑starter patent, arguing that all eleven claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Richardson, Zhao, Yu and Paparrizos.
