US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 224 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent instituted · Feb 15, 2024
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00442
Comcast Cable Communications successfully argued that multiple claims in the patent were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to an institution decision by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertions of obviousness across various combinations of prior art references.
patent instituted · Feb 15, 2024
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00430
Comcast Cable Communications successfully secured institution in its IPR challenge against the '690 patent, arguing that various prior art references anticipate or render obvious claims related to channel assessment probes. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for certain claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to the scheduling of trial.
patent Final Written Decision · Feb 15, 2024
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-00573
The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable over the combination of Giobbi ’1573, Giobbi ’1394, and Dua. The Board successfully rejected arguments regarding means-plus-function interpretation, finding key terms like 'PDK' and 'RDC' conveyed sufficient definite structure. This decision represents a significant win for the Petitioner in this IPR proceeding.
patent final · Feb 15, 2024
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
· IPR2024-00577
The PTAB found all seven challenged claims of the portable jump starter apparatus unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board successfully applied two distinct combinations of prior art references (Richardson/Zhao and Yu/Paparrizos) to reject the claims.
patent Final Written Decision · Feb 15, 2024
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00446
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board concluded that the prior art references, particularly Rabenko and Gaspar, rendered the claimed cable modem architecture obvious.
patent final · Feb 15, 2024
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00442
The PTAB found that the claims were unpatentable over prior art combinations, specifically rejecting grounds based on Renken's architecture and Aggarwal's limitations. The Board concluded that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Kamieniecki and Konstantinos for multi-channel functionality.
patent final · Feb 15, 2024
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
· IPR2024-00430
The PTAB found that several claims of the patent were unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). Key findings included that Claim 1 was anticipated by IEEE-802.16, and specific combinations of prior art rendered other claims obvious.
patent null · Feb 14, 2024
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
· IPR2024-00388
Tesla challenges Graphite Charging Company's patent (8,291,243) in an IPR proceeding, arguing the claims are invalid. The petition asserts grounds of obviousness over prior art references Wang, AESO Report, and Cooley.
patent instituted · Feb 14, 2024
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
· IPR2024-00388
Tesla successfully navigated the PTAB's discretionary denial hurdles, leading to the institution of its IPR challenge against Graphite Charging Company LLC. The Board found that Tesla demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Wang and Cooley.
patent final · Feb 14, 2024
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
· IPR2024-00388
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the claims were not unpatentable by either anticipation (Cooley) or obviousness (Wang/AESO Report). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's claim construction of 'current' as referring to the present, rejecting the petitioner's interpretation.
patent instituted · Feb 12, 2024
Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
· IPR2025-00233
Formycon secured an institution of IPR against Regeneron's VEGF‑antagonist formulation patent (10,464,992), covering claims 1‑18, after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 12, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
· IPR2025-00241
Cisco and Brazos Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,441,721, a fiber‑Raman amplifier invention, and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and statutory authority for termination.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 12, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
· IPR2025-00241
Cisco and WSOU Investments settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,441,721 before trial. The Board dismissed the petition on the parties' joint motion to terminate.
patent · Feb 12, 2024
Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
· IPR2025-00233
Formycon AG has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 52 claims of Regeneron's anti‑VEGF ophthalmic formulation patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art formulations and presentations. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
patent · Feb 12, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00191
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of YMTC’s 3D NAND patent, arguing obviousness over Nishikawa, Lu, and Nishikawa2 references and asserting no discretionary denial factors.
patent · Feb 12, 2024
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
· IPR2025-00241
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1,2,4,6,19,21 of the ’721 Raman‑pump optimization patent, arguing they are obvious over Sugaya and, in combination, over Farmer. The petition stresses prompt filing and argues against discretionary denial.
patent denied · Feb 12, 2024
Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
· IPR2025-00233
The PTAB denied Formycon AG's IPR against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., citing substantial overlap with parallel district court proceedings (MDL). The Board found that the interests of system efficiency were best served by denying institution.
patent instituted · Feb 12, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00191
Micron Technology successfully challenged several claims in the NAND Flash patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds. The Board found that modifying TAC shapes and implementing dummy channels were simple advancements supported by prior art.
patent · Feb 10, 2024
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
· IPR2024-01271
Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Metarail’s ‘normalized variable data database’ patent. The petitioner contends the Board misread claim scope and that the Belanger‑Halevy combination satisfies the claimed mapping step.
patent · Feb 10, 2024
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-01429
HP, Dell, and Lenovo have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of U.S. Pat. 7,187,307, alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art block‑encoding disclosures (Shin, Yusairi). The petition requests the Board to institute review and invalidate the claims.
patent · Feb 10, 2024
Apple Inc. v.Rally AG LLC
· IPR2024-01446
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Rally’s email‑cloaking patent, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeking institution of the review.
patent instituted · Feb 10, 2024
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
· IPR2024-01270
Google LLC has challenged Metarail's deep-linking patents in a PTAB petition, arguing that the claimed invention—a universal variable map for generating deep-linked ads—is obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references like Belanger and Halevy would have made the automation of mapping fields predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
patent denied · Feb 10, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-01481
The PTAB denied institution for a petition challenging Patent No. 7,746,798 B2, citing both procedural factors and significant weaknesses in the merits. The denial was influenced by the proximity of an expected trial date in related litigation to the final decision timeline.
patent denied · Feb 10, 2024
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-01429
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by HP Inc. and others against Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc., citing that the petitioner's allegations of anticipation and obviousness were not 'particularly strong.' The decision also addressed discretionary denial under § 314(a) based on parallel district court litigation.
