US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 215 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00984
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2‑4 and 11 of U.S. Patent 10,218,995, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art video‑coding references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the challenged claims.
patent
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00992
Mercedes-Benz seeks to invalidate all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 11,352,020, alleging they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-00977
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Telcom Ventures’ ’756 patent covering smartphone‑based mobile payments. The challenger relies on the Jain and Dua prior‑art references to argue obviousness of all 18 claims.
patent
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00990
Mercedes‑Benz has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Phelan Group’s U.S. Patent 10,259,470 covering a driver‑authentication and safety system. The petition cites ten grounds of obviousness or anticipation, relying on prior‑art references such as Arshad, Petrik, Siwinski, Wu, Kudo and Murphy. The requester seeks cancellation of all twenty claims.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00988
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Wilus Institute’s U.S. Patent 10,687,281 covering non‑contiguous channel bonding in IEEE 802.11ax. The petition relies on multiple Wi‑Fi standard disclosures to argue lack of novelty and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00983
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of the ’303 video‑coding patent, asserting obviousness over Demircin and Kimoto references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00986
Mercedes‑Benz seeks cancellation of all 18 claims of U.S. Patent 9,493,149, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary factors favor institution.
patent
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-00975
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ 9,832,708 patent covering dual‑air‑interface smartphones and NFC‑based payments, asserting obviousness over Jain and Dua references.
patent
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-00974
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’432 patent covering smartphone‑based financial transactions. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over earlier NFC and biometric systems disclosed in Jain and Dua. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
· IPR2025-00970
Be Smarter petitions the PTAB to invalidate Yondr's ’788 patent covering lockable cases for electronic devices, citing prior art that anticipates and renders the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑8.
patent
L'Oreal USA, Inc. v.BRIGHTEX BIO-PHOTONICS, LLC
· IPR2025-00971
L'Oreal seeks IPR on Brightex’s 2017 cosmetic‑recommendation patent, arguing all 15 claims are obvious over Bandic, Rubinstenn103 and Rubinstenn300 references.
patent
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-00969
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 26 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s CDN caching patent. The petition relies on obviousness over Kenner and on combinations with Vetter, Rekimoto, and Boyles, and also challenges claim 28 under §112. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute review.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2025-00963
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 10,28144, asserting obviousness over Wright and, in combination, Tzannes and Smith. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
· IPR2025-00960
Sony Interactive Entertainment has filed an IPR petition challenging AX Wireless’s 10,917,272 patent covering OFDM header repetition. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over a combination of the Hansen patent, the July 2005 WWiSE proposal, and Choi’s repetition‑coding publication under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Tire Stickers LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00631
Revvo Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging Tire Stickers’ ’027 patent covering display assemblies for vulcanized rubber articles, asserting that all 18 challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art patches and commercial brochures.
patent
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-00957
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ ’172 patent covering NFC‑based smartphone payments, asserting obviousness over Jain and Dua publications and arguing against discretionary denial.
patent
Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.
· IPR2025-00956
Straumann USA petitions the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Smart Denture Conversions' dental implant patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
· IPR2025-00955
Koito Manufacturing filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of the ’803 patent, alleging lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple automotive headlamp references. The petition lists eight grounds covering anticipation and obviousness, and requests the Board to institute the review.
patent
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-00951
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE petition the PTAB to invalidate Champion’s dual‑fuel generator patent (10,598,101) on grounds of obviousness and anticipation, citing DuroMax, De Vries, Fujisawa, Nakafushi, and Olmr as prior art.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
· IPR2025-00625
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate KAIFI’s U.S. 8,930,196 patent covering a two‑step voice‑activation system. The petition argues that all 20 claims are obvious over Bou‑Ghazale combined with token‑passing, phoneme/anti‑phoneme models, and adaptive filtering. It also contends that discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d) is unwarranted.
patent
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00949
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Helsinn’s anti‑emetic patent (US 10,828,297) on the ground that the claims are obvious over standard chemotherapy anti‑emetic regimens. The petition argues the examiner’s reliance on alleged unexpected synergy is unsupported.
patent
Tesla Inc. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-00944
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Granite Vehicle Ventures’ autonomous‑driving safety patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition lists eleven grounds of obviousness covering the full claim set. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
· IPR2025-00937
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Corning’s 8,640,498 glass‑substrate patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over seven prior‑art references.
patent
RegenX Science Inc. v.Nextgen Biologics, Inc.
· IPR2025-00620
RegenX Science has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 32 claims of Nextgen Biologics’ tissue‑engineered graft patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art ECM references.
