US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 218 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00628
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging three claims of Optimum Imaging’s 8,451,339 camera‑aberration patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art. The petition seeks institution and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.
· IPR2025-00511
Linkplay Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sonos’s ’357 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Richenstein, Chatterton, the MOST‑2.0 spec, and RFC1889. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and requests institution of the review.
patent
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00611
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging Stratasys' 3D‑printer configuration patent (US 11,886,774), asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
patent
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00519
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR on Maxell’s ‘188 patent, asserting that claims 1‑9 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering thumbnail image editing and protection.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
· IPR2025-00512
Samsung has filed a petition to institute an IPR against KPN’s U.S. Patent 8,881,235 covering service‑based authentication in cellular networks, arguing that the claims are obvious over 3GPP standards, an IETF draft, Aldera, and Naslund. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under discretionary statutes.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
· IPR2025-00624
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate KAIFI’s ’232 patent covering ubiquitous sensor‑network middleware, arguing that the claims are obvious over earlier publications by Jakobson and Tsetsos. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial, requesting the Board to institute the review.
patent
International Business Machines Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00599
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 container‑technology patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as McMillan and Schaefer. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) is unwarranted.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
· IPR2025-00627
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of KAIFI’s ’001 patent covering camera‑based indoor location recognition, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art patents.
patent
OtterBox v.SafeTray Products Ltd.
· IPR2025-00622
Otter Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SafeTray’s ’691 patent covering tablet‑grip devices, arguing the invention was well known and obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00629
Axon, Dedrone and Skydio have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Airspace Systems’ ’711 drone‑flight‑control patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition stresses strong motivation to combine these teachings and seeks institution of the review.
patent
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
· IPR2025-00623
UiPath has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Rule 14’s ’679 patent on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Fintiv factors preclude discretionary denial and includes a stipulation against parallel district‑court litigation.
patent
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
· IPR2025-00890
Toyota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle‑personalization patent, arguing it is anticipated or obvious over earlier car‑control technologies such as Yasui, Morehouse, Ikeda, and Zellner.
patent
REC Solar Holdings AS et al. v.Maxeon Solar PTE. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00593
REC Solar Holdings has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 9‑20 of Maxeon’s 8,878,053 solar‑cell patent, asserting obviousness over prior art such as Froitzheim, Gan, Kwark and related publications.
patent
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00489
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Callender patent and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00586
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of TJTM Technologies’ ’853 patent, which covers a mobile‑device “inactive mode” for reducing driver distraction. The petition relies on obviousness over Cazanas, Frye, and Zhou and argues there is no basis for discretionary denial.
patent
Apple Inc. v.--
· IPR2025-00600
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑9 of Proxense’s ’989 patent covering smartphone biometric authentication, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.
· IPR2025-00604
Xencor, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Merus N.V.'s U.S. Patent No. 9,358,286 covering bispecific antibodies. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over prior art references Lazar, Arathoon, and Cabrera, and argues against discretionary denial.
patent
International Business Machines Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00591
IBM has filed a petition for inter partes review of VirtaMove’s U.S. Patent 7,784,058, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art relating to shared libraries and OS kernel functions. The petition details two grounds of obviousness and argues against discretionary denial.
patent
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
· IPR2025-00581
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ImberaTek’s ’201 patent on embedding components in a baseboard, asserting that the claim is anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should not deny institution and that all Fintiv factors favor proceeding.
patent
Samsara Inc. v.Motive Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-00574
Samsara has filed an IPR petition challenging Motive Technologies’ camera‑calibration patent, arguing that six grounds of obviousness under §103 render claims 1‑7 unpatentable.
patent
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
· IPR2025-00598
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of Barco’s 2024 video‑conferencing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and examiner error.
patent
Analog Devices, Inc. et al. v.Number 14 B.V.
· IPR2025-00551
Analog Devices has filed a petition to cancel Number 14 B.V.’s 7,812,665 op‑amp offset‑calibration patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is improper.
patent
REC Solar Holdings AS et al. v.Maxeon Solar PTE. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00592
REC Solar seeks cancellation of claims 9‑12 of Maxeon’s 8,222,516 solar‑cell patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier PTAB rulings.
patent
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00585
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Stratasys' 3D‑printing patent covering RFID‑based material tagging, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging institution of the review.
