US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 220 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2025-00420
SAP America seeks an IPR on Valtrus’s 6,889,244 patent covering fault‑tolerant messaging, arguing the claims are obvious over Bowman, Vahalia and Tuxedo. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
patent
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00849
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing that the Blaser, Calder and Schmidt-449 references render the claims obvious under §103. The petition also asserts that any discretionary denial would be improper.
patent
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-00477
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 of Maxell’s 7,850,313 projector patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
patent
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00855
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑18 of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing obviousness over Elnozahy and Draves and lack of written‑description support. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
· IPR2025-00485
NXP and Qualcomm have filed an IPR petition challenging Redstone Logics' 8,549,339 patent covering multi‑core processors with independent voltage and clock domains, seeking cancellation of ten claims on obviousness grounds.
patent
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00486
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging XtreamEdge’s ’753 patent covering blade‑server packet identifiers and memory arrangements, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00851
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier container‑virtualization technologies such as Linux VServer, Solaris Zones, and Zap pods.
patent
Google LLC v.BrodTi Inc.
· IPR2025-00472
Google LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate BrodTi Inc.’s 11,416,898 patent covering internet‑based project financing via advertising. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
patent
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2025-00470
Petitioners seek cancellation of all 25 claims of DISH’s multi‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art systems.
patent
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00422
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 28 claims of U.S. Patent 10,668,430 covering mercury‑removal technology for coal‑fired power plants. The petition relies on obviousness and anticipation arguments over four prior‑art references and urges the Board not to deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-00847
TSMC and Apple petition the PTAB to invalidate all 11 claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’847 MOS transistor patent, citing multiple prior‑art references that anticipate or render the claims obvious under §§102 and 103.
patent
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00423
Berkshire Hathaway Energy group petitions the PTAB to institute IPR of U.S. Patent 10,668,430 covering mercury removal methods, arguing obviousness and lack of priority support.
patent
SIG Sauer, Inc. v.Lone Star Future Weapons, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00410
SIG Sauer has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,919,238, asserting that the weapon‑system claims are anticipated or obvious over Holek, Rossier, and Chinn. The petition seeks institution of the IPR to cancel all 17 challenged claims.
patent
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
· IPR2025-00465
Padagis seeks to invalidate Neurelis' 11,241,414 patent covering intranasal benzodiazepine solutions, arguing obviousness over Gwozdz and Meezan and invoking collateral estoppel from a prior IPR.
patent
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2025-00414
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of Valtrus’s ’182 data‑redundancy patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
patent
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
· IPR2025-00408
Dabico Airport Solutions has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of AXA Power’s preconditioned‑air‑unit patent, asserting that the claimed features are obvious over multiple HVAC prior‑arts. The petition cites Kreymer, Taras, Takahashi, Carrier and Lechmotoren as teaching the same elements.
patent
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-00842
Suzhou Mojawa filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Shenzhou Shokz’s bone‑conduction headphone patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Intel Corporation et al. v.USTA Technology, LLC
· IPR2025-00838
Intel and Lenovo have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 53 and 95 of USTA Technology’s RE47,720 patent, arguing obviousness based on a combination of prior‑art references covering OFDM/MIMO techniques.
patent
NKT Photonics Inc. et al. v.Omni Continuum LLC
· IPR2025-00839
NKT Photonics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Omni Continuum's 7,433,116 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Shaw and Islam references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on 25 claims covering Raman‑based infrared light sources.
patent
Ultrahuman Healthcare PVT. LTD et al. v.Ouraring Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00411
Ultrahuman Healthcare has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of Oura's finger‑worn health‑monitoring ring, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking §325(d) to avoid denial.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
· IPR2025-00837
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate QPrivacy’s U.S. 11,106,824 patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art IDS patents (Burns, Yang, and Wittenberg). The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
· IPR2025-00405
Zhuhai CosMX Battery challenges Ningde Amperex’s ’910 battery electrolyte patent, asserting that 21 claims are obvious over a suite of Chinese and foreign prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR under § 103, arguing the claims add no inventive contribution. The Board has yet to decide on institution.
patent
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
· IPR2025-00405
Zhuhai CosMX Battery has filed a corrected IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Ningde Amperex’s 2023 lithium‑ion battery electrolyte patent. The petition relies on multiple foreign and U.S. references that allegedly disclose the same dinitrile, trinitrile and propyl propionate compositions. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-00835
Amphenol petitions the PTAB to invalidate Credo’s ’233 active‑cable patent, asserting that prior‑art references render all twenty claims obvious. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
