US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 214 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
· IPR2025-01023
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of CM HK’s 3D pointing‑device patent, arguing obviousness over Bassompiere and Nasiri references and lack of written description for quaternion‑based features.
patent
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC.
· IPR2025-01037
Intel and Dell have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate General Video's ’786 HDMI 3D video patent. They argue the claims are obvious over prior art references Tu, Suzuki, and Lida. The petition requests the Board to institute a trial and cancel the challenged claims.
patent
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01030
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Tesla Inc. et al. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01034
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging Granite Vehicle Ventures’ ’004 patent covering self‑driving vehicle safety features. The petition lists eleven obviousness grounds based on combinations of prior‑art references. The case is pending before the PTAB.
patent
Astera Manufacturing Limited et al. v.ElectraLED Inc.
· IPR2025-01022
Astera Manufacturing and Chauvet & Sons have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 21‑28 of ElectraLED’s U.S. Pat. No. 7,651,245, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple LED‑lighting prior‑art references.
patent
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
· IPR2025-01027
Geotab has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all twenty claims of Fractus’s ’200 antenna patent, citing obviousness over Dou and Jing and lack of written description for 4G‑related features. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Klein Tools, Inc. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al.
· IPR2025-01018
Klein Tools petitions PTAB to invalidate Milwaukee’s 11,952,167 toolbox patent, asserting that its 16 claims are obvious over decades‑old container designs. The petition lists eight grounds of obviousness, each combining Burchia, Metabowerke and other prior art references.
patent
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Collabo Innovations Inc.
· IPR2025-01015
Qualcomm has filed a petition for inter partes review of Collabo Innovations' ’575 microcontroller patent, seeking cancellation of nine claims on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on a series of prior‑art references that allegedly disclose all claim limitations.
patent
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01021
Imperative Care seeks an IPR of Inari Medical’s ’333 patent covering aspiration systems for pulmonary embolism and DVT, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the Board to institute review of 36 claims.
patent
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. v.RE Secured Networks, LLC
· IPR2025-01019
OmniVision has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RE Secured Networks' 6,838,651 CMOS image sensor patent. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Isogai, Inuiya, Neter, and Fossum.
patent
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01014
Snap Inc. and Hisense have filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,050,321 video‑coding patent, asserting that all 11 claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Kim and Adolph.
patent
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-01010
Google LLC filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 15 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s ’322 patent covering CDN edge‑server selection. The petition relies on Verma and other prior‑art references under §§102 and 103.
patent
Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC
· IPR2025-01006
Treasure Garden petitions the PTAB to invalidate all seven claims of ATLeisure’s 8,104,492 umbrella patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art umbrellas and proposing claim constructions.
patent
Hisense USA Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn LLC
· IPR2025-01004
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Phenix Longhorn’s LCD gamma‑correction patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
patent
Gator Bio Inc. et al. v.Sartorius Bioanalytical Instruments, Inc.
· IPR2025-00633
Gator Bio challenges Sartorius’s ’588 patent covering tip‑tray devices for optical sensing assemblies, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of Miles, Yang, WO854 and Rainin. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on all 19 claims.
patent
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00999
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of U.S. Patent 9,986,303, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier scalable video‑coding disclosures (Demircin, Chen, Karczewicz). The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that the prior art was not considered during prosecution.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-01003
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Audio Pod’s ’907 patent covering synchronized audiobook files, arguing they are obvious over standards and prior publications such as the DTB SMIL specification and McCartney’s work.
patent
Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC
· IPR2025-01005
Treasure Garden has filed an IPR petition challenging all seven claims of ATLeisure’s 8,104,492 umbrella patent, alleging anticipation by Wang ’109/’439 and obviousness over Glatz ’980 and related references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Oracle Corporation v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-01002
Oracle has filed an IPR petition challenging eleven claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 container‑technology patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier container systems such as Osman, Tucker, Bandhole and Gélinas.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
· IPR2025-00993
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of W&Wsens’ ’871 photodetector patent, asserting obviousness over earlier imaging patents by Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu.
patent
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00998
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of U.S. Patent 8,090,025, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art video‑coding references. The petition seeks institution based on General Plastic and Fintiv factors.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
· IPR2025-00995
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of W&Wsens Devices’ ’543 patent covering a single‑chip microstructure‑enhanced photodetector. The challenger relies on the Kuboi publication to argue anticipation and obviousness. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
· IPR2025-00997
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate 20 claims of W&Wsens Devices’ ’084 patent covering a microstructure‑enhanced photodetector integrated with a processor. The petition relies on Harada, Hasegawa, NXP and Yahaya references to argue obviousness. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
· IPR2025-00996
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of W&Wsens Devices’ ’700 patent, asserting that the invention is anticipated and obvious over the Kuboi publication. The petition relies heavily on detailed comparisons of layer structures, hole etching, and CMOS integration.
