US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 209 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
· IPR2025-00891
Toyota Motor Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of AutoConnect’s vehicle‑control patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Ikeda and Hendry publications.
patent
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00883
Hisense has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of VideoLabs' ’304 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Russ and Robert patents.
patent
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00882
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VideoLabs' ’236 patent covering conditional access and DRM bridging. The petition relies on three prior patents—Russ, Robert, and Eskicioglu—to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
· IPR2025-01071
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of CM HK’s 11,698,687 patent covering a 3‑D pointing device. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Bassompiere prior art and lack written‑description support for quaternion‑based algorithms.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01070
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of a video‑compression patent owned by Advanced Coding Technologies, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial of the request.
patent
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00819
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Align Technology’s 11,154,384 patent covering multilayer dental aligners. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Tadros, Kalili, Porter, Wen, and Texin 990R.
patent
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00881
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate VideoLabs’ U.S. Patent 8,291,236 covering conditional‑access and DRM bridging, citing the Russ patent as prior art for anticipation and obviousness.
patent
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
· IPR2025-01078
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Evolution Malta’s ’371 roulette‑payout patent, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier gaming patents such as Kido, Yee, and Baron.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-00831
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s U.S. Patent 8,587,076, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial is improper under §§314(a) and 325(d).
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-00830
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s ’180 patent, asserting obviousness over numerous high‑k gate dielectric references. The petition also argues that the Board should not apply discretionary denial. The case is pending institution.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01069
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Wilus Institute’s U.S. Patent 10,313,077 covering Wi‑Fi coexistence signaling. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple IEEE 802.11‑related prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
patent
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
· IPR2025-01066
Caption Health has filed an IPR petition challenging UBC’s 2021 ultrasound imaging patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references describing view‑specific neural‑network quality assessment.
patent
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
· IPR2025-00877
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Cellular South’s 11,126,853 patent covering video‑to‑data systems, asserting that all eleven claims are obvious under §103. The petition lists four grounds, each tying specific claim groups to prior‑art references.
patent
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01068
Element TV has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’321 video‑coding patent, asserting that claims 8‑11 are obvious over MPEG‑1, the Kim patent, and Yagasaki. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--
· IPR2025-00878
Clearwater Paper has filed a revised IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 and 11 of Graphic Packaging International’s biodegradable paper cup patent, asserting anticipation by Cleveland and obviousness via Nakagawa and Tanner. The petition requests institution of the review.
patent
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00880
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VideoLabs' ’236 patent claims covering conditional access and DRM bridging. The petition relies on three prior‑art patents (Russ, Robert, Eskicioglu) to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
patent
Clearwater Paper Corporation v.--
· IPR2025-00878
Clearwater Paper has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 and 11 of Graphic Packaging’s biodegradable cup patent, asserting anticipation by Cleveland and obviousness over Nakagawa and Tanner. The petition argues the prior art was not considered during prosecution and requests institution of the trial.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
· IPR2025-00788
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of GenghisComm’s ’568 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing the patent is post‑AIA. The petition seeks institution of the review.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
· IPR2025-00792
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of GenghisComm’s ’285 patent covering OFDM techniques. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues that a discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-00769
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’922 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
· IPR2025-00781
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of GenghisComm’s OFDM patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Galda, Dowling, Kaiser and Bury. The petition also argues the patent’s priority chain is broken and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hermes IP Management LLC
· IPR2025-00872
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of Hermes’s ’720 patent covering idle‑screen management on mobile devices, asserting obviousness over Hawkins, Majava and Nielsen.
patent
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
· IPR2025-00762
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging Pantech’s 10,863,573 patent covering dual‑connectivity data handling. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑5 and 8‑12.
patent
Valneva Austria GMBH v.Takeda Vaccines, Inc.
· IPR2025-00776
Valneva has filed an IPR petition challenging all 67 claims of Takeda’s Zika vaccine patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petitioner argues the examiner erred and that no discretionary bars apply, seeking cancellation of the entire patent.
