US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 217 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-00659
Microsoft seeks to invalidate Dialect’s 9,495,957 patent covering natural‑language processing in mobile devices, arguing that claims 7 and 8 are obvious over prior art such as Maes, Coffman, Kennewick and Weissman, and urging the PTAB to institute the IPR.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00565
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑5 of U.S. Patent 11,069,337, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over prior‑art references Shin, Shimomura, and Kristjansson.
patent
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
· IPR2025-00583
Apple has filed a petition to institute an IPR against ImberaTek’s U.S. Pat. No. 11,071,207, asserting that claims 1‑6 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
patent
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-00657
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 13‑15, 17‑18 of Dialect’s 9,263,039 patent, asserting they are obvious over prior art from Maes and Ross. The petition argues the examiner never evaluated this combination and that discretionary factors favor institution.
patent
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
· IPR2025-00576
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 33 claims of ImberaTek’s 2010 patent on embedded circuit‑board components, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
· IPR2025-00578
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate 36 claims of ImberaTek's 7,989,944 patent covering embedded components in circuit boards, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00661
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,459,863 covering electric‑powered multi‑plunger fracturing pump systems. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references, chiefly Fischer, to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
· IPR2025-00577
Apple files an IPR seeking to invalidate ImberaTek’s 7,732,909 patent on embedded circuit‑board components, arguing all 33 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00563
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of VirtaMove’s 7,519,814 patent, arguing they are obvious over existing container‑virtualization technologies such as Osman, Tucker, Bandhole, and Gélinas.
patent
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
· IPR2025-00559
Anthony Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of ControlTec’s 7,207,181 patent covering condensation control in refrigerated display cases. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00644
Samsung has filed a petition for IPR against iCashe’s 9,208,423 patent covering a mobile phone that emulates a magnetic‑card swipe. The petition relies on Doughty, Bursch and Fox references to argue obviousness under §103 and contends that discretionary denial does not apply.
patent
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
· IPR2025-00653
TankLogix seeks IPR of SitePro’s 11,726,504 patent covering remote fluid‑handling control, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over Cardamone, Kahn, and SCADA references.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00645
Samsung has filed a petition to invalidate iCashe’s U.S. Patent 11,270,174 covering a mobile phone that emulates a magnetic‑card swipe. The petition relies on a series of prior‑art references to argue obviousness and asserts that PTAB discretion should not be exercised.
patent
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-00656
Microsoft has filed a petition to invalidate Dialect’s 607 patent covering multimodal speech processing, arguing obviousness over Maes and a combination of Maes, Coffman, and Ittycheriah, and urging the PTAB to institute review.
patent
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
· IPR2025-00647
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s 9,898,014 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling devices, asserting that Kahn and Gutierrez patents anticipate or render the claims obvious. The petition stresses strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2025-00638
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2, 5, 7‑8, and 11 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’395 patent on the ground of obviousness over Moir and Martínez. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00639
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of iCashe’s NFC smartcard patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Bangs, Kerdraon, and Koh references. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references and that discretionary denial does not apply.
patent
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-00655
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 12 and 13 of Dialect’s 7,640,160 patent, arguing they are obvious over Maes, Coffman, and Ross references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
patent
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
· IPR2025-00652
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s ‘403 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling devices, citing Kahn, Almadi, and Gutierrez as anticipatory and obvious prior art.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00643
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s ’156 patent covering mobile‑phone magnetic‑stripe emulation. The petition relies on Doughty and Fox as prior art and argues that the examiner failed to consider these references, making the claims unpatentable under §§102 and 103.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00642
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate iCashe’s 8,403,219 patent covering smartcard integration in mobile phones. The petition relies on the Fox and Takekawa references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00641
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s NFC patent (U.S. 11,694,053), asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bangs, Kerdraon, Koh, and Fisher. The petition seeks institution on claims 1‑8 and 17‑20 under §§102 and 103.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
· IPR2025-00528
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑5 and 7‑20 of Keyless Licensing’s ’144 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bast, Wedel, Benoit and Jambhekar.
patent
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-00632
Revvo Technologies petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cerebrum Sensor’s TPMS patent, arguing that 27 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
