US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 210 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-00777
Amazon and affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 29 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’720 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary denial under §§314(a) and 325(d) is inappropriate.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-00774
Amazon and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Audio Pod IP’s 8,738,740 patent covering audio‑stream segment selection and delivery, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple CDN‑related references.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-00765
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 12‑17 of Audio Pod IP’s 8,738,740 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering audio bookmarking and descriptor files.
patent
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00755
USAA has filed an IPR petition challenging PACid’s ’530 patent on multiple obviousness grounds, citing Immega, Day, Tomko, Mardikar‑318, Chhabra and Duffy prior art. The petition argues for institution and cites Fintiv factors.
patent
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
· IPR2025-00875
Google has filed an IPR petition against Cellular South’s 9,940,972 B2 “Video to Data” patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art references Fontana, Lau, and Arakawa. The petition seeks institution of the review.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-00768
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Audio Pod IP’s 10,805,111 patent covering digital talking‑book playback, arguing that all 16 claims are obvious over prior art such as Prabhakaran and DTB.
patent
Microsoft Corporation v.TS-Optics Corporation
· IPR2025-00767
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging TS‑Optics’ U.S. Patent 7,266,055 covering optical pickup actuators. The petition asserts that all asserted claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references, including Choi, Ogata, Ikeda, Kamata, Santo, Kabasawa, Miura, and Sugiyama. Microsoft seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
patent
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00751
USAA has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of PACid Technologies' ’771 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on a suite of prior‑art references covering biometric and cryptographic authentication.
patent
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-00860
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s CDN patent, arguing anticipation by Newton-471 and obviousness over Dilley, Pai, and Wang. The petition stresses favorable institution factors and argues against discretionary denial.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-00757
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’266 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack proper priority support.
patent
Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.
· IPR2025-00750
Alpinestars has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Dainese’s U.S. Patent 12,012,065, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
· IPR2025-00868
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of VB Assets’ voice‑dialog patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over two pre‑2006 publications. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial is improper.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.VB Assets, LLC
· IPR2025-00871
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging VB Assets' U.S. Patent 10,510,341, asserting that all 18 claims are obvious over prior‑art combinations of SmartKom/Kobsa and Barbara/Ross. The petition seeks institution of the review.
patent
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00753
USAA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of PACid Technologies' ’433 patent on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition emphasizes early filing and strong Fintiv factors to argue for institution.
patent
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00752
USAA Federal Savings Bank petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against PACid Technologies' 2018 patent covering biometric user authentication, asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim analyses and argues that institutional factors strongly favor proceeding.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Datonics LLC
· IPR2025-00873
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Datonics’ ’445 patent covering targeted‑advertising methods. The petition argues all claims are obvious over prior art such as Gilmour, Merriman, Frauenhofer, and Julia, and disputes any discretionary denial.
patent
Perplexity AI, Inc. v.Comet ML, Inc.
· IPR2025-01063
Perplexity AI has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twelve claims of Comet ML’s neural‑network training patent. The challenger asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references—Baker, Lorenz, Shridhar, and Jenatton—under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00862
AMD seeks to invalidate 30 claims of its competitor’s ’768 patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier cluster‑computing publications and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.
· IPR2025-00861
SIG Sauer has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of True Velocity’s polymeric ammunition cartridge patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines seven statutory grounds under §§ 102 and 103 and requests institution of the review.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
· IPR2025-01062
Amazon has filed a petition to invalidate DivX’s 10,715,806 video‑transcoding patent, asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art such as Sambe, Vetro, and Gu. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary statutes.
patent
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00863
AMD has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of the ’768 patent, asserting they are obvious over earlier Cornell research and IBM documentation. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate given the strong merits and AMD’s AI semiconductor interests.
patent
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-00843
Suzhou Mojawa has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Shenzhen Shokz’s bone‑conduction headphone patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· IPR2025-01059
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,744,686 covering an intraoral mouthpiece. The petition asserts that claims 12‑21 are obvious over several prior‑art patents and that the patent owner broadened claim scope. The case is pending institution.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Allani, Ferid
· IPR2025-00856
Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,271,877, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art references Rossmann, Himmel, King, and Boyle. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all 19 claims.
