US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 223 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
· IPR2025-00785
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ load‑balancing patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references.
patent
SeaSpine Holdings Corporation et al. v.Jackson, Roger
· IPR2025-00773
SeaSpine petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑implant patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over long‑standing screw‑thread designs disclosed in Kirschman, Higbee, Johnson, Boschert and a 2005 publication.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC
· IPR2025-00780
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 14 claims of GenghisComm’s ’842 OFDM patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that Fintiv factors favor institution.
patent
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00778
Liberty Energy petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services' 11,959,533 patent covering multi‑plunger hydraulic fracturing pumps. The petition asserts that all 25 claims are obvious under §103, relying on a series of prior‑art combinations and argues that institution is proper under the Fintiv and Becton factors.
patent
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
· IPR2025-00772
Dentsply Sirona has filed a petition for inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s ‘262 patent covering dental and orthopedic CT densitometry. The petitioner relies on three grounds—Massie, Arai, and Pelc—to argue that claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 are anticipated or obvious.
patent
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Wireless, LLC
· IPR2025-00763
OnePlus Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging ten claims of Pantech's U.S. Patent No. 11,212,838, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Zeira and Yi publications. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
patent
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00754
USAA Federal Savings Bank petitions the PTAB to invalidate PACid Technologies' biometric authentication patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition relies on Immega‑Day‑Tomko, Mardikar‑318/Chhabra, and Duffy teachings and argues that institution is warranted under the Fintiv framework.
patent
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00758
Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of the Phelan Group’s driver‑authentication patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00746
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate three claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑based gaming patent, arguing they are obvious over the earlier Levine application. The petition cites dismissal of the patent in a related district‑court case and argues no discretionary denial factors apply.
patent
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC v.Facet Technology Corp.
· IPR2025-00748
ZF Active Safety files an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Facet Technology’s ’255 patent covering roadway reflectivity assessment, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00744
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of Mullen Industries’ AR video‑game patent, asserting obviousness over earlier AR references. The petition seeks institution and argues no discretionary denial applies.
patent
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
· IPR2025-00747
Decent Espresso International seeks an IPR to invalidate all ten claims of U.S. Patent 11,957,271, arguing that the coffee‑brewing concepts are fully disclosed in prior‑art patents such as Startz and Coccia. The petition requests institution and cites strong motivation to combine multiple references.
patent
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00732
Tessell, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑19 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent No. 10,817,157, arguing that the claimed database‑provisioning UI is obvious over known prior art. The petition also argues there is no basis for discretionary denial, urging the Board to institute review.
patent
Meta Platforms Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00739
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Mullen Industries’ location‑based AR gaming patent (U.S. 10,179,277). The petition relies on obviousness grounds under §103, citing Jaszlics and Rallison as prior art, and argues no discretionary denial factors apply.
patent
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00733
Tessell, Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑30 of Nutanix’s ’340 database‑management patent, arguing obviousness over Chikkanayakanahally and Merriman. The petition also argues there is no basis for discretionary denial.
patent
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
· IPR2025-00731
Amneal Pharmaceuticals has filed a petition to invalidate all 20 claims of Nivagen’s U.S. Patent 11,925,661 covering ready‑to‑use potassium phosphate solutions, citing multiple prior‑art references and lack of written‑description support.
patent
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00726
MIM Software has filed a petition to invalidate Progenics' U.S. Patent 11,894,141, asserting that its claims on prostate‑cancer imaging are obvious over prior‑art references such as Maier, Huang and Armor. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues against discretionary denial.
patent
Transcend Information Inc. v.Truesight Communications LLC
· IPR2025-00723
Transcend Information has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Truesight Communications' 2015 patent on secure SD‑card content transfer, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution despite related Texas litigation.
patent
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v.Klein Tools Inc.
· IPR2025-00724
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate Klein Tools' safety‑helmet patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and anticipation by Klein's own 2019 news release, while also challenging the patent’s priority date due to added matter.
patent
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00717
PacifiCorp and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,926,218, which covers mercury‑removal methods for coal‑fired power plants. They contend the claims are obvious over a combination of four prior‑art references and that the claimed additive ratio lacks patentable weight.
patent
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2025-00433
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 of Applied Optoelectronics’ 9,523,826 patent covering pluggable optical transceiver modules, citing Wu and Mizue as anticipatory prior art.
patent
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00711
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Milestone Entertainment’s online‑gaming patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition requests institution under §§325(d) and 314(a).
patent
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00712
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Milestone Entertainment’s U.S. Patent 11,393,279, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art gaming systems. The petition seeks institution of the review under §§325(d) and 314(a).
patent
Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC
· IPR2025-00714
Databricks has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 37‑43 of ByteWeavr’s ’733 patent as obvious over Chow, Lee and White. The petition argues that a skilled artisan would combine these references to achieve the claimed agent‑based network functionality.
