US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 227 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00566
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 11 claims of VirtaMove’s 7,519,814 patent covering container virtualization. The petition argues obviousness over prior‑art systems such as Osman, Tucker, Bandhole and Gélinas and asserts no discretionary denial grounds.
patent
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
· IPR2025-00350
Stingray Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all claims of U.S. Patent 10,524,002, arguing they are obvious or anticipated by earlier web‑broadcast technologies. The petition cites Avellan, Ma, Fain, and Wannamaker as prior art and requests that the Board institute the review.
patent
Carvana, LLC v.International Business Machines Corporation
· IPR2025-00564
Carvana petitions the PTAB to invalidate IBM’s ’719 patent covering a dual‑MVC web architecture, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier MVC and JavaScript publications.
patent
X Corp. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
· IPR2025-00299
X Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sterling Computers’ 7,716,217 patent covering email relevance scoring, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over prior art such as Dumais, Kircher, Krug, and Marston. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00298
Tessell has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑36 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent 11,860,818, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art database UI disclosures. The petition argues that the examiner never considered the cited references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2025-00348
Webgroup CZ and NKL have filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of DISH's adaptive streaming patent, asserting obviousness over the Leaning and Gamble references. The petition argues strong Graham factors and no discretionary denial grounds.
patent
AT&T SERVICES INC. et al. v.RightQuestion, LLC
· IPR2025-00360
AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 23 claims of RightQuestion’s device‑fingerprinting patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Miller reference.
patent
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2025-00347
Webgroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates have filed a petition for inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive streaming patent, asserting obviousness over the Leaning and Gamble references under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00354
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology petitions to invalidate 17 claims of Stratasys' 3D‑printer patent, arguing that a combination of prior‑art references makes the claims obvious. The petition also challenges a discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).
patent
LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00300
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of U.S. Patent 9,578,384, arguing they are obvious over a combination of the Kim smart‑TV disclosure and publicly available Netflix UI videos, plus the Hunt and Hunleth patents. Two grounds are asserted under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). The petition also argues discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
· IPR2025-00349
Stingray Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of U.S. Patent 10,123,074, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Avellan and a suite of secondary references.
patent
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00294
Micron has filed a petition to invalidate claims 6, 7, 10, and 20 of YMTC’s 3D NAND joint‑opening patent, asserting obviousness over Costa combined with Liu, Lee, and Toyama. The petitioner also argues there are no discretionary reasons to deny institution.
patent
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
· IPR2025-00351
Stingray Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 26 claims of the ’441 patent, alleging anticipation or obviousness over a wide range of prior‑art streaming patents. The petition argues that the Board should not deny the request and requests institution of the review.
patent
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
· IPR2025-00557
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Zaxcom’s ‘444 patent, seeking cancellation of 23 claims on obviousness grounds using multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs and disputes any discretionary denial.
patent
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
· IPR2025-00296
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of EyesMatch’s ’110 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00343
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Intellectual Ventures’ ’138 patent covering UMTS radio‑bearer data selection, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that no discretionary denial grounds exist.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00561
Amazon seeks IPR cancellation of VirtaMove’s 7,784,058 patent, asserting that shared‑library implementations disclosed in early‑2000s papers render all challenged claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2025-00342
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2 and 6‑11 of the ’805 patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier autonomous‑vehicle publications. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests the Board to institute the review.
patent
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
· IPR2025-00297
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of EyesMatch’s ’109 patent, arguing they are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references and that discretionary denial doctrines do not apply.
patent
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00344
Google has filed a petition for inter partes review of SoundClear’s 9,070,374 patent covering a simplex communication apparatus with visual feedback. The petition argues that all claims are obvious over IBM, Kale, and Li prior art and seeks institution of the IPR.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00291
Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation's 5G frequency‑hopping patent, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny the filing under discretionary statutes.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2025-00341
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Pat. 7,181,743. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Welch whitepaper and related publications, and disputes any discretionary denial.
patent
Roche Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Trividia Health, Inc.
· IPR2025-00553
Roche Diabetes Care petitions the PTAB to invalidate Trividia Health’s 8,128,981 patent covering glucose test strip manufacturing, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art laser‑ablation references. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and opposes discretionary denial.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2025-00340
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of U.S. Patent 6,894,639, arguing they are obvious over earlier image‑processing patents (Barnard, Knecht, Lawrence). The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
