US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 229 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00542
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies' patent covering mobile device content sharing, asserting obviousness over prior Symbian forum and gaming system references.
patent
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
· IPR2025-00316
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,805,687, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art streaming technologies. The petition also argues against discretionary denial, referencing Fintiv and the lack of a prior petition by the same party.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00541
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Mobile Data Technologies’ ’348 patent, arguing they are obvious over early web‑community and proxy‑server references. The petition also challenges the patent owner’s claim constructions and argues against discretionary denial.
patent
Microsoft Corporation v.Sterling Computers Corporation
· IPR2025-00270
Microsoft petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Sterling's 911 patent covering email compliance features, arguing the claims are obvious over Rohall, Schiavone, and Gomes. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00539
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ 8,793,336 patent covering web‑based content sharing on mobile devices, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art Yahoo! club technology and related references.
patent
Microsoft Corporation v.ParTec AG
· IPR2025-00318
Microsoft seeks to invalidate ParTec’s 11,537,442 patent covering dynamic task allocation in heterogeneous clusters, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lippert, Budenske, and Kambatla. The petition also challenges a potential Fintiv denial.
patent
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
· IPR2025-00315
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent (U.S. 10,805,687) on obviousness grounds, citing a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition argues no prior petition exists and includes a Fintiv stipulation to limit further challenges.
patent
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00321
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has petitioned an IPR against Stratasys' 3‑D‑printing patent covering purge‑tower printing, asserting obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
· IPR2025-00267
Entegris has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑10 of Inpria’s ’903 patent, asserting that the claimed high‑purity organotin compositions are fully disclosed in earlier literature. The petition challenges the patent on anticipation and obviousness grounds and argues that Inpria’s examiner‑era declarations were misleading.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00540
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of Mobile Data Technologies' 8,793,336 patent, asserting obviousness over two prior‑art combinations and arguing against discretionary denial.
patent
Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2025-00324
Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 14 of ParkerVision’s ‘177 patent, asserting obviousness over Tayloe, a TI multiplexer datasheet, Razavi, and Uzunoglu references. The petition argues that the prior art predates the patent’s critical date and that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
patent
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00317
Verizon and other carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of a 5G preemption patent owned by Pegasus Wireless. The petition relies on obviousness over the Kuchibhotla and Chen publications and asks the PTAB to institute the review.
patent
Lam Research Corp. v.Inpria Corporation
· IPR2025-00309
Lam Research has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Inpria's EUV lithography patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness issues. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
· IPR2025-00314
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s ‘697 patent covering low‑latency sports video and data streaming. The petition alleges obviousness over five prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
patent
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00306
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging VideoLabs' U.S. Patent 8,291,236 covering conditional‑access and DRM bridging. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art patents and seeks institution of the review.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00536
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ 9,032,039 patent covering mobile content sharing. The petition argues the claims are obvious over two prior‑art combinations and urges the Board to institute the review.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00537
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Mobile Data Technologies’ ’801 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is improper.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00538
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies’ U.S. Patent 8,825,801, asserting that the claims are obvious over two prior‑art combinations (Randall‑Forsyth and Pelkey‑Eck) and urging the Board to institute the review.
patent
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
· IPR2025-00313
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over six prior‑art references and asking the PTAB to institute the review and cancel the claims.
patent
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
· IPR2025-00254
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of X1 Discovery’s U.S. Patent No. 10,552,490 covering search indexing. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Lotus Notes, Raskin, Wu, Entourage, True, and Baeza‑Yates references and urges the Board not to deny institution.
patent
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00532
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Stratasys’s 3‑D printer force‑detection patent. The challenger alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references, including Warren, Dunn, Calderon and an open‑source RepRap forum thread.
patent
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
· IPR2025-00534
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging KPN’s U.S. Patent 9,462,544, asserting that claim 1 is obvious over multiple LTE‑related prior art references. The petition seeks institution and argues the Board should not deny it under discretionary standards.
patent
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
· IPR2025-00255
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 27 claims of X1 Discovery’s 9,633,139 patent covering incremental multi‑string search. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Lotus Notes, Raskin, Wu and over Entourage, True, and Baeza‑Yates references.
patent
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
· IPR2025-00533
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate KPN’s RE48,089 patent covering automatic wireless coverage assessment. The petition relies on obviousness over Olofsson/Kuruvilla and Lee/Shrum and argues against discretionary denial.
