US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 222 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00369
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and no discretionary denial grounds.
patent
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ArcelorMittal
· IPR2025-00371
POSCO has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of ArcelorMittal’s hot‑stamped coated steel patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition argues that the references were not considered during prosecution and that a skilled artisan would have combined them to achieve the claimed inventions.
patent
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00817
ClearCorrect has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Align’s 10,791,936 dental scanning patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art references. The petition seeks a finding of unpatentability for the entire claim set.
patent
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00815
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of Align Technology’s orthodontic treatment‑planning patent (US 10,524,879), alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the round‑tripping collision‑avoidance technique is well‑known.
patent
Caihong Display Devices Co. Ltd. v.Corning Inc.
· IPR2025-00439
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Corning’s 2010 glass‑substrate patent, asserting obviousness over Miwa and Bange and anticipation by Miwa. The petition includes an expert declaration and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00814
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Align Technology’s orthodontic treatment‑planning patent, arguing the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references.
patent
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
· IPR2025-00812
USAA petitions the PTAB to invalidate Auto Telematics’ vehicle‑behavior logging patent, asserting that all 28 claims are obvious over a combination of existing telematics and accident‑detection references.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00365
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over Sheha and Randall references. The petition cites a prior Board institution in an Apple IPR and argues no discretionary denial applies.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00366
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 15‑41 of Mullen Industries’ ’117 patent covering wireless device location sharing, citing multiple prior‑art combinations under §103.
patent
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2025-00435
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Applied Optoelectronics' optical‑transceiver patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
· IPR2025-00808
GE Healthcare petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of a Johns Hopkins FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceutical patent, asserting obviousness over US‑633, US‑121, Meletta and Jansen references.
patent
Walmart Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00810
Walmart has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of RavenWhite’s ’823 patent, asserting obviousness over two prior‑art references (Hinton and Varghese) and a lack of written‑description support.
patent
Walmart Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00809
Walmart has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Security Technology’s ’402 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition presents two grounds, each covering claims 1‑19, and argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
patent
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2025-00811
Apple and Sony have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SiOnyx’s 9,064,764 image‑sensor patent. The petition alleges that all 25 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references, presenting 15 distinct obviousness grounds. Institution of the IPR is requested.
patent
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-00805
Harbor Freight has filed an IPR petition challenging Champion Power’s 2019 dual‑fuel engine patent, asserting that all 24 claims are either obvious or anticipated by a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00807
Henri Daussi, LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 14 claims of U.S. Patent 9,398,791 covering an oblong diamond cut, citing multiple prior‑art references for lack of novelty and obviousness.
patent
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2025-00782
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 23 claims of a satellite‑internet patent owned by Intellectual Ventures. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC.
· IPR2025-00789
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging GenghisComm’s ’786 patent covering OFDM spread‑spectrum methods. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
· IPR2025-00786
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate key claims of Intellectual Ventures' virtual network patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial by the Board.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
· IPR2025-00775
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑9 of Withrow Networks' 2020 multimedia streaming patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
patent
DataDome S.A. et al. v.Arkose Labs Holdings, Inc.
· IPR2025-00694
DataDome has filed a petition to review Arkose Labs’ ‘robot proof website’ patent (U.S. 9,148,427), seeking to invalidate the claims through inter partes review.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
· IPR2025-00793
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging GenghisComm’s ’792 OFDM patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues strong merits and seeks institution, while disputing any discretionary denial.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
· IPR2025-00790
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of GenghisComm’s ’508 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Shattil-537 and secondary references Doufexi and Lucent. The petition argues strong merits and cites Fintiv factors to oppose discretionary denial.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
· IPR2025-00791
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 19 claims of GenghisComm’s ’005 OFDM patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues the patent is post‑AIA and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
