US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 228 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00290
Google and a consortium of carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate U.S. Patent 10,721,118, which covers dual‑connectivity methods for user equipment. The petition relies on the Futaki publication and 3GPP standards to argue anticipation and obviousness of all 15 claims.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00292
Google and major telecom carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 of Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s ’644 patent on MTC coverage enhancement, arguing the claims are anticipated and obvious over Lee, You, and Zhuang prior art.
patent
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00280
Berkshire Hathaway Energy filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of U.S. Patent 10,596,517 covering mercury removal from flue gas, arguing obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
VideoAmp, Inc. v.The Nielsen Company (US), LLC
· IPR2025-00555
VideoAmp petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 23 claims of Nielsen’s ’250 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art systems (Pecjak, Mirisola, and Shankar). The petition includes expert testimony and argues against discretionary denial.
patent
Analog Devices, Inc. et al. v.Number 14 B.V.
· IPR2025-00550
Analog Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 21 and 22 of U.S. Patent 7,973,596, arguing they are obvious over Pertijs and Tang prior art. The petition includes detailed claim constructions and argues against discretionary denial.
patent
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00281
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of a mercury‑removal patent, arguing obviousness and lack of priority support. The petition relies on prior art from early‑2000s conference papers and patents. Institution of the proceeding is pending.
patent
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
· IPR2025-00289
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of Inari Medical’s ’005 patent covering a catheter‑based aspiration system with a hemostasis valve, alleging obviousness over Garrison, Schaffer, Hartley and Eller references.
patent
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Blossom Holdco Limited et al.
· IPR2025-00554
Shenzhen Root Technology petitions to invalidate U.S. Patent 11,806,454 covering a wearable breast pump, arguing the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
patent
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00278
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,343,114, which covers a mercury‑removal method for coal‑fired power plants. The petition argues the claims are obvious over earlier conference papers and patents, and that the patent lacks priority support for its bromine‑related limitations.
patent
KLIPSTA PTY LTD v.Albanese, Lindsay
· IPR2025-00346
Klipsta PTY LTD petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,413,047, asserting that the hat‑holding system is fully anticipated or obvious over numerous international prior‑art references.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00339
Tesla petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a digital‑camera patent, arguing they are obvious over existing multi‑sensor camera technologies and that no discretionary denial applies.
patent
GOOGLE LLC v.EscapeX IP LLC
· IPR2025-00337
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of EscapeX’s ’687 patent covering social‑media engagement monetization. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and meets the statutory threshold for institution.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
· IPR2025-00336
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Sinotechnix’s 7,901,113 LED lens patent, asserting that prior art references Odawara, Sommers, and West anticipate or render the claims obvious.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
· IPR2025-00334
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 6 of Sinotechnix’s 9,412,913 LED‑package patent, asserting obviousness and anticipation based on five prior‑art references.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
· IPR2025-00545
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate dozens of claims of AlmondNet’s ’904 patent covering URL‑redirect based user profiling for targeted ads.
patent
Intel Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2025-00329
Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Proxense’s ’672 patent covering wireless time‑slot allocation, arguing the claims are obvious over public standards and prior‑art publications.
patent
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v.AbTis Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-00283
Ajinomoto has filed an IPR petition challenging AbTis’s U.S. Patent 11,896,675 covering site‑specific antibody‑drug conjugates. The petitioner alleges lack of written description, improper priority, and that all 13 claims are anticipated or obvious over several pre‑grant publications and conference disclosures. The petition seeks cancellation of every claim.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
· IPR2025-00335
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging four claims of Sinotechnix’s ’952 patent covering LCD backlight panels. The challenger asserts obviousness over the Hong and Lee publications, and over its own admitted prior art, and seeks institution of the review.
patent
Intel Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2025-00328
Intel has filed a petition to invalidate Proxense’s U.S. Patent 8,219,129 covering high‑rate WPAN communications, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00543
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 21 claims of Mobile Data Technologies’ ’578 patent covering mobile content‑sharing functionality. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial.
patent
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00274
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliated utilities have filed a petition for inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent 10,343,114, which claims mercury‑removal methods for coal‑fired power plants. The petition asserts obviousness over several prior‑art references and argues the Board should not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d). The case is pending Board decision.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00544
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies' 9,619,578 patent covering mobile content sharing. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art combinations and seeks institution of the review.
patent
Intel Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2025-00327
Intel has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s 9,265,043 patent covering wireless time‑slot allocation. The petition asserts obviousness over combinations of Gilb, IEEE 802.15.3, Ward, and Brawn, and argues discretionary denial is improper.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
· IPR2025-00333
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sinotechnix’s ’873 patent covering side‑illumination LED lenses, asserting that multiple prior‑art references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims.
