US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 219 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2025-00562
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Proxense’s ’188 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
· IPR2025-00558
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of the ’911 patent, alleging obviousness over Steuer and Eldering references and lack of written‑description support for video‑data features.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00535
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies' 9,032,039 patent covering network‑based content management. The petition alleges obviousness over several pre‑2002 web and mobile references and argues discretionary denial is improper.
patent
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00530
Axon and Dedrone have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of Airspace Systems' UAV‑defense patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition also argues that institution is proper under the Fintiv factors.
patent
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00531
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Stratasys’s 3‑D‑printer force‑detection patent (US 9,168,698) on multiple obviousness grounds, citing Warren, Eshed, Calderon, RepRap forum disclosures, and Napadensky. The petition also addresses discretionary issues under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
patent
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00488
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Schmidt‑479, Tormasov, Calder, and Schmidt‑629) under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00516
Sandisk and Western Digital have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Polaris PowerLED’s ’346 patent, asserting that its parity‑generation claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the claimed on‑the‑fly techniques and command distribution were well‑known and that discretionary denial is not warranted.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2025-00481
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research's U.S. Patent 11,096,055 covering automated device provisioning and activation. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial. The case is pending before the PTAB.
patent
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00501
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Micron's 3D NAND patent, arguing that all challenged claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art by Lee, Freeman, and Lim. The petition also asserts that discretionary denial does not apply.
patent
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
· IPR2025-00464
Padagis US LLC seeks IPR cancellation of Neurelis' 8,895,546 patent covering intranasal benzodiazepine solutions, arguing obviousness over Gwozdz and Meezan and invoking collateral estoppel from a prior IPR.
patent
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2025-00468
WebGroup Czech Republic challenges DISH's adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting that 27 claims are obvious over earlier streaming patents and standards. The petition seeks institution of an IPR, arguing strong merits and favorable discretionary factors.
patent
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
· IPR2025-00521
Zepp Health petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR and invalidate all 20 claims of Worcester Polytechnic’s ‘362 patent covering PPG motion‑artifact detection, citing obviousness over Chon ‘947, Mollerus, and Simon. The petitioner also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate under §314(a) and §325(d).
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00463
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’266 digital‑camera patent, asserting obviousness over multiple pre‑AIA references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-00520
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Maxell’s U.S. Patent 10,244,284 covering a display apparatus and video processing method, arguing that claims 18‑20 are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references involving dual‑radio devices, Bluetooth, WLAN, and related standards.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
· IPR2025-00495
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑8 and 10‑19 of Four Batons Wireless’s 8,239,671 patent. The petition relies on obviousness over three prior‑art references—Sood, Aboba, and Lee—and includes claim‑construction arguments for the term “key binding blob.”
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
· IPR2025-00493
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Four Batons Wireless’s ’348 patent covering silent proactive handoff. The petition relies on obviousness over Hsu and three additional references and argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
patent
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION v.Worcester Polytechnic Institute
· IPR2025-00522
Zepp Health petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Worcester Poly's 9,713,428 patent covering wearable physiological monitoring, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
· IPR2025-00441
Wiz, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking institution of a challenge to all 34 claims of Orca Security’s cloud‑snapshot patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
· IPR2025-00503
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging KPN’s 8,660,560 patent covering automatic neighbor‑cell list updates, asserting obviousness over multiple Ericsson patents and 3GPP standards.
patent
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
· IPR2025-00876
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cellular South’s 10,218,954 patent covering video‑to‑data methods, asserting obviousness over Kritt, Fontana, and Lau references and noting no discretionary denial issues.
patent
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
· IPR2025-00432
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks to invalidate Ningde Amperex’s 2023 lithium‑ion battery separator patent by alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR under Section 325(d).
patent
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
· IPR2025-00430
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sterling Computers' 7,716,217 patent covering email relevance scoring, citing obviousness over Dumais, Rose, and a Rose‑Bieganski combination.
patent
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.EXELIXIS, INC.
· IPR2025-00427
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Exelixis’s U.S. 12,128,039 patent, arguing obviousness over Brown combined with Kubo and Robinson references.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-00865
TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s ’747 patent covering FET manufacturing methods. They argue the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
