US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 213 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00713
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Milestone Entertainment’s ’607 patent covering online gaming systems with mandated and variable parameters. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over prior art such as Kelly683, Walker, Paulsen, and Schneier143 and seeks institution of the review.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00673
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all seven claims of SoundClear’s ’675 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
· IPR2025-00715
Databricks has filed a petition to invalidate claims 24‑25 of ByteWeavr’s 7,949,752 patent, arguing obviousness over two older patents (Chow and White). The petition seeks institution of the IPR, citing prior PTAB rulings and Fintiv factor analysis.
patent
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00702
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Mullen Industries' VR gaming patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
patent
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
· IPR2025-01047
FreightCar America filed an IPR petition to invalidate National Steel Car’s 8,132,515 hopper‑car patent. The petitioner asserts that all 44 claims are obvious over a century of prior art, including Hart and historic cyclopedias. The Board has yet to rule on the petition.
patent
DataDome S.A. et al. v.Arkose Labs Holdings, Inc.
· IPR2025-00694
DataDome has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Arkose Labs' CAPTCHA‑related patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art such as the Lim patent and its combinations with Lillibridge and Guthrie.
patent
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
· IPR2025-00705
Aroma360 seeks to invalidate claims 7‑9 and 11 of Air Esscentials’ 9,527,094 patent on essential‑oil diffusers, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the PTAB to institute the IPR.
patent
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
· IPR2025-01046
FreightCar America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of National Steel Car’s hopper‑car patent, asserting that the invention was disclosed in early rail‑car literature and patents dating back to 1919.
patent
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
· IPR2025-00698
Savant Technologies (GE Lighting) has filed an IPR petition challenging Feit Electric’s 8,614,539 patent covering white‑light LED devices with TiO diffusing layers, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.
· IPR2025-00696
Kahoot! has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 14 claims of Interstellar’s ’825 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors is inappropriate.
patent
Wise PLC et al. v.--
· IPR2025-01045
Wise PLC has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Intercurrency Software’s U.S. Patent 11,620,701, seeking to invalidate all sixteen claims as obvious over existing foreign‑exchange trading systems.
patent
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-00658
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Dialect’s 8,195,468 patent covering multimodal voice‑assistant technology, asserting obviousness over the Maes, Coffman, and Ittycheriah references. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references, creating a material error, and urges the Board to institute review.
patent
CSPC Megalith Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al. v.Shanghai Miracogen Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00685
CSPC Megalith has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Shanghai Miracogen’s antibody‑drug conjugate patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art ADC disclosures. The petition seeks institution of the review.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01044
Samsung Electronics petitions to invalidate ten claims of Wilus Institute’s Wi‑Fi patent, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references covering EDCA parameters, backoff timers, and MU transmission techniques.
patent
Skullcandy Inc. et al. v.Earin AB
· IPR2025-00690
Skullcandy has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 20 and 21 of Earin's 9,402,120 wireless‑earbud patent. The petition relies on three obviousness grounds using Olodort, Guccione, Yamashita and the Bluetooth Spec. 4.1 as prior art. The Board is asked to institute the review.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01043
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of Wilus Institute’s ’035 Wi‑Fi patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references covering EDCA parameters and UL‑MU transmissions.
patent
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
· IPR2025-01039
Intel, Dell and Dell Technologies have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of General Video's '437 patent covering serial video/audio transmission, arguing obviousness over Kim, Shin and Myers. The petition relies on expert testimony and cites multiple district‑court cases involving the patent.
patent
Caihong Display Devices, Co., Ltd v.Corning Incorporated
· IPR2025-01040
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Corning's 9,512,025 patent covering a glass‑ribbon heating cartridge for LCD displays, alleging obviousness over three prior‑art references.
patent
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
· IPR2025-01036
Intel and Dell seek to invalidate General Video's ’010 HDMI 3D patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over earlier HDMI standards and prior‑art patents (Tu, Suzuki, Yun, Lida). The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel the challenged claims.
patent
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
· IPR2025-01038
Intel and Dell have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate General Video’s ’437 patent covering robust subset encoding of video and audio data over a serial link. They argue the claims are obvious over prior patents by Kim, Shin, and Myers.
patent
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.
· IPR2025-01024
Empower Clinic Services filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 16 claims of Eli Lilly’s peptide patent (US 9,474,780) on the ground of obviousness over three pre‑2015 WO publications. The petition argues that a skilled artisan would have combined these teachings to arrive at the claimed GIP/GLP‑1 dual‑agonist peptides.
patent
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01029
Revelyst Sales LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 5‑12 and 17‑20 of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition relies on §§102 and 103 and detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis of Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Piper, and Halldin references.
patent
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01033
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed a petition to invalidate BrainGuard's 9,516,909 helmet patent, asserting that its layered, sliding‑helmet claims are anticipated or obvious in view of prior‑art helmets such as Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Madey, and Dotsuko.
patent
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01032
Revelyst Sales LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 16 claims of BrainGuard Technologies’ helmet patent, alleging obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art helmets that employ sliding layers and chin‑strap configurations.
