US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 212 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
· IPR2025-00761
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s U.S. Patent 12,019,461 covering remote fluid‑handling control. The challenger argues that a combination of four prior‑art references makes all 17 claims obvious under §103 and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00741
Meta Platforms filed an IPR petition challenging Mullen Industries' location‑based AR gaming patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references including Jaszlics, Sofer, Ronzani, and Rallison.
patent
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00697
USAA Federal Savings Bank has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of PACid Technologies' ’993 patent on user authentication. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §102. The Board is asked to institute the review.
patent
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC v.Facet Technology Corp.
· IPR2025-00749
ZF Active Safety files a petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Facet Technology’s ’328 patent covering roadway reflectivity assessment, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00743
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition against Mullen Industries' 11,947,716 patent covering head‑mounted devices with flexible displays and keyboards, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01051
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 69 claims of the ’971 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of Watanabe, Ribaudo, and Behrens prior art relating to Bluetooth beacon and proximity services.
patent
Meta Platforms, Ic. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00737
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging Mullen Industries' 8,585,476 patent covering location‑based AR games, asserting five §103 obviousness grounds based on prior art such as Jaszlics and Piekarski.
patent
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-01052
GlobalFoundries has filed an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of Oak IP’s ’691 patent covering metal‑semiconductor junctions. The petition relies on U.S. Patent No. 7,176,483 for anticipation and on a combination of that patent with U.S. Patent No. 7,727,882 for obviousness, while also raising written‑description and enablement issues.
patent
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00742
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition against Mullen Industries’ location‑based gaming patent, asserting that fifteen claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Levesque, Ronzani, Fager and Ohshima.
patent
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00740
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of Mullen Industries' location‑based AR gaming patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00745
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Mullen Industries' location‑based gaming patent, arguing they are obvious over the Levine prior‑art application.
patent
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00688
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,933,370, which covers mercury removal from coal‑fired power plant flue gas. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues the patent lacks written‑description support for its priority date. The Board’s decision on institution is pending.
patent
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00738
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging five claims of Mullen Industries' location‑based AR gaming patent (U.S. 9,744,448). The petitioner alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues no discretionary denial applies.
patent
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00687
PacifiCorp and its affiliates have filed a petition to institute an IPR against MES’s 10,933,370 patent covering mercury‑removal methods, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the claimed additive‑to‑sorbent ratio lacks patentable weight.
patent
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2025-00689
Apple and Sony have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of SiOnyx’s image‑sensor patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues no discretionary denial applies and urges the Board to institute review.
patent
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00728
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 hemostasis valve patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-00683
TSMC has filed an IPR petition against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s U.S. Patent 8,907,425 covering semiconductor devices. The petition asserts that claims 1‑15 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-00682
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 35 claims of the ’686 semiconductor device patent owned by Advanced Integrated Circuit Process. The petition alleges examiner error and that multiple prior‑art references render the claims anticipated or obvious.
patent
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00680
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2 and 3 of Resonant’s haptic‑feedback patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and seeking joinder with a related Apple IPR. The petition highlights favorable Fintiv factors and disputes the patent owner’s claim constructions.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01050
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 26 claims of U.S. Patent 11,443,344, which covers Bluetooth beacon‑based proximity services. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of Watanabe, Ribaudo, and Behrens references.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01049
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of U.S. Patent 11,334,918 covering proximity‑beacon functionality in mobile devices. The challenger relies on obviousness arguments based on Ribaudo and its combination with Watanabe, Behrens, and Mgrdechian. The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.
patent
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC
· IPR2025-00716
Databricks petitions the PTAB to review U.S. Patent 8,275,827, asserting that key claims are obvious over prior‑art storage systems (Carter, OceanStore, Gibson) and should be invalidated.
patent
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
· IPR2025-00720
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1, 3 and 4 of Pantech’s ’776 patent covering uplink synchronization in multi‑component carrier LTE systems, citing Dinan and several 3GPP documents as prior art.
patent
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
· IPR2025-00707
AROMA 360, LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Air Esscentials' fragrance‑diffuser patent, asserting that claims 1 and 3‑8 are obvious over prior‑art diffusers (Goubet, Kaiser, Gao‑2). The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
