US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 224 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00710
Activision Blizzard has filed a petition for inter partes review of Milestone Entertainment’s U.S. Patent No. 10,825,294, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior art relating to virtual currency in games. The petition relies on Schneier143 and Okita references and seeks institution of the review.
patent
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00709
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Milestone Entertainment’s 10,650,635 patent covering virtual‑currency mechanisms in games, arguing obviousness over prior‑art patents Schneier143 and Okita.
patent
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00708
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging Milestone Entertainment’s ’336 gaming patent, asserting obviousness over Kelly683 and over Walker combined with Schneier143. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability for 19 claims.
patent
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00703
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Mullen Industries’ AR gaming patent (US 11,033,821), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and lack of written description. The petition seeks institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
patent
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
· IPR2025-00706
Aroma360 seeks an IPR of Air Esscentials' 10,583,449 patent covering fluid‑dispersion assemblies for fragrance delivery, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and anticipation by a Chinese utility model.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Ziklag IP LLC
· IPR2025-00700
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of the ’128 patent covering cable‑based music distribution, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Yurt and Logan) and that discretionary denial is improper.
patent
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-00699
Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Credo’s ’111 patent covering chip‑to‑module pre‑equalization techniques. The petition relies on obviousness over Lugthart‑706, Das Sharma, and Mezer, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
DataDome S.A. et al. v.Arkose Labs Holdings, Inc.
· IPR2025-00693
DataDome petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Arkose Labs' robot‑proof website patent, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over prior art such as Lim, Guthrie, and Lillibridge. The petition argues no discretionary denial grounds exist and seeks cancellation of the claims.
patent
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00345
Google filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of SoundClear's 9,031,259 patent covering noise‑reduction apparatuses, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references and seeking institution of the review.
patent
GetTattle, Inc. v.AfterWords, Inc.
· IPR2025-00677
GetTattle petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of AfterWords' ‘811 patent covering transaction‑specific surveys. The petition relies on two prior‑art publications, Douglas and Ganesh, asserting they anticipate all claimed elements. Claim constructions are provided to bolster the anticipation argument.
patent
SmartSky Networks, LLC v.Gogo Business Aviation LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00672
SmartSky Networks has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Gogo’s ‘600 ATG communication patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references.
patent
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. et al. v.Kolon Industries, Inc.
· IPR2025-00664
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. has filed an IPR petition challenging Kolon Industries' 9,617,663 patent on hybrid tire cords, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution, arguing strong statutory and discretionary support.
patent
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. et al. v.Kolon Industries, Inc.
· IPR2025-00662
Hyosung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Kolon’s 9,789,731 patent covering hybrid nylon‑aramid tire cords, arguing that all seven claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
· IPR2025-00650
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against SitePro's remote fluid‑handling patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Kahn and Gutierrez patents and highlighting discretionary factors favoring institution.
patent
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
· IPR2025-00651
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of SitePro’s ‘680 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling devices, citing four prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary factors favor institution.
patent
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
· IPR2025-00648
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro's 8,649,909 patent covering remote control of oil‑field fluid‑handling devices. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Cardamone, Almadi, and Abdallah—to argue anticipation or obviousness of all challenged claims. Discretionary factors favor institution.
patent
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
· IPR2025-00649
TankLogix petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitePro’s fluid‑handling control patent, asserting that three prior‑art references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims and that discretionary factors favor institution.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.iCashe, Inc.
· IPR2025-00640
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging iCashe’s NFC‑related patent 9,483,722, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over prior art such as Finkenzeller, Kerdraon, Koh, and Bangs. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
patent
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
· IPR2025-00637
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of Pantech’s LTE dual‑connectivity patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Dudda, Lin, and Pelletier references.
patent
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
· IPR2025-00636
Anthony Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of ControlTec's refrigeration condensation patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
· IPR2025-00635
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 8‑23 of SportsCastr’s live‑streaming patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution under discretionary statutes.
patent
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
· IPR2025-00634
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of SportsCastr’s live‑streaming patent, arguing obviousness over Ellis, Herzog, Spivey and Abulikemu and asserting that the examiner failed to consider key prior art.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
· IPR2025-00626
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of KAIFI’s ’518 smart‑home patent, alleging obviousness over the Ermis publication and the combined teachings of Ermis and Nakano. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that the prior art predates the patent’s priority date.
patent
MIM Software Inc. et al. v.Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00630
MIM Software has filed an IPR petition challenging Progenics' patent on AI‑driven medical risk mapping, asserting lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also cites Fintiv factors to support institution.
