US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 230 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00257
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology petitions to invalidate Stratasys' 3D‑printer heated‑bed patent, asserting that all 15 claims are obvious over a combination of existing 3D‑printing references.
patent
Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC
· IPR2025-00308
Twitch Interactive has filed a petition to invalidate claim 1 of Razdog’s cloud‑computing patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeking institution of an IPR trial.
patent
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2025-00243
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8‑17 of U.S. Patent 8,769,316, asserting obviousness over Felter, Finkelstein, and Therien references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and urges the Board to institute the review.
patent
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
· IPR2025-00253
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all ten claims of X1 Discovery’s 2008 ‘Methods and Systems for Search Indexing’ patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references such as Lotus Notes, Entourage, and academic works.
patent
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
· IPR2025-00246
ResMed has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 15‑29 of Cleveland Medical Devices’ ’333 patent covering networked CPAP therapy. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references Toge, Kumar, Norman and Burton. No secondary considerations are offered and the Board is asked to institute the review.
patent
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00304
ASUSTek seeks an IPR to invalidate VideoLabs' 8,291,236 patent covering conditional access and DRM bridging, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as the Russ, Robert, and Eskicioglu patents.
patent
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00245
Micron has filed an IPR petition against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over Costa and, when combined with Oh, lack patentability. The petition argues no discretionary denial grounds and seeks institution.
patent
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00244
Micron has filed an IPR petition against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Costa reference and requesting the Board to institute the review.
patent
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
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2025-00239
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Optronic Sciences' OLED pixel‑driving patent. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Kim406, Kim730, and Senda—to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103.
patent
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00305
ASUSTek has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VideoLabs' U.S. Patent 8,291,236, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the Russ patent. The petition also argues there is no discretionary denial basis.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00293
Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of a 5G CQI‑table patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. They contend the claims are obvious over prior‑art standards documents and a PCT publication. The petition seeks institution of the review.
patent
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2025-00303
Intel, Lenovo and Motorola have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑5 of Collision Communications’ ’703 patent covering iterative multi‑user detection. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness and urges the Board to institute the review.
patent
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2025-00302
Intel, Lenovo, and Motorola have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Collision Communications’ ’651 patent covering multi‑user detection. They rely on obviousness over Fuller‑Reznik and Frank‑Zha combinations and argue that discretionary denial factors favor institution.
patent
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00228
Micron has filed an IPR petition targeting YMTC’s 3D NAND ‘276 patent, asserting that all 18 claims are obvious over Kim, Fang, Han, and Chen. The petition argues no discretionary denial applies and seeks institution.
patent
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2025-00301
Intel, Lenovo and Motorola seek to invalidate Collision Communications' 9,814,071 patent on multi‑user detection, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art such as Jin, Baum, Tsai and Vrzic. The petition emphasizes new arguments and opposes discretionary denial, requesting institution of the IPR.
patent
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2025-00285
Lenovo and Motorola filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications’ ’505 patent covering multi‑user detection. The petition asserts obviousness over Hottinen/Lilleberg and Zimmerman/Lilleberg and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2025-00284
Lenovo and Motorola Mobility have filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications' 8,089,946 patent covering multi‑user detection modems. They assert three obviousness grounds based on Walton, Learned, and Quigley prior art. The petition seeks institution and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
· IPR2025-00287
Biofrontera has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate eight claims of Sun Pharma’s photodynamic‑therapy device patent, arguing obviousness over Lundahl, Larsen, Hente and Perutz. The petition argues the prior art was not previously considered and that the Board should not deny the petition under §325(d) or Fintiv.
patent
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
· IPR2025-00231
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 14 claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent on obviousness grounds, citing prior‑art references and earlier PTAB findings.
patent
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
· IPR2025-00213
Phison Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 15 claims of Vervain’s ’385 patent on the basis that the hybrid SLC‑MLC flash architecture and its wear‑leveling features are obvious over prior art such as Gavens, Moshayedi and Sutardja.
patent
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
· IPR2025-00230
RØDE Microphones has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of Zaxcom’s ’443 patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of six prior‑art references and urging the PTAB to institute the review.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00227
Google and Samsung have filed a petition to invalidate Mullen Industries' 9,635,540 patent covering mobile‑to‑mobile location sharing. The petition relies on a suite of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and asserts no basis for discretionary denial.
patent
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2025-00207
Arm and MediaTek have filed an IPR petition challenging Daedalus Prime's multicore cache coherence patent, asserting that all claims are obvious over prior art such as Agarwal, Sinharoy, Blumrich, and Sistla.
