US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 231 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
· IPR2025-00216
Luxottica has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of e‑Vision’s Bluetooth‑enabled smart‑eyewear patent, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references including Thiel, Jannard‑740 and Apple’s Siri technology.
patent
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
· IPR2025-00273
Sportradar seeks an IPR against SportsCastr's streaming patent, arguing that claims 1‑15 are obvious over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petition emphasizes examiner oversight and argues against discretionary denial.
patent
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.EXELIXIS, INC.
· IPR2025-00210
Azurity Pharmaceuticals has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 of Exelixis’s U.S. Pat. 11,298,349 covering oral cabozantinib (L)-malate formulations. The petition alleges anticipation by the earlier Wilson patent and obviousness over Brown, Kubo and Remington, while arguing that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
patent
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
· IPR2025-00212
Phison Electronics has petitioned the PTAB for inter‑partes review of Vervain’s 8,891,298 patent covering a hybrid NAND flash memory system. The petition asserts that all 11 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of multiple prior‑art references. The Board must decide whether to institute the proceeding.
patent
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
· IPR2025-00275
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent, arguing obviousness and anticipation over three prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute the review.
patent
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-00276
Normshield has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight’s 11,777,976 patent covering methods for generating composite security ratings. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art from Tippett and McGovern, supported by extensive public‑domain cybersecurity references.
patent
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
· IPR2025-00269
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and requesting the Board to institute the review.
patent
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
· IPR2025-00200
Liberty Mutual and Comerica have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 37 claims of Intellectual Ventures' 722 patent on the ground of obviousness over prior‑art event‑notification systems. The petition relies on expert testimony and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
· IPR2025-00266
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging eleven claims of SportsCastr’s live‑streaming patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art systems disclosed by Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00197
Google and Samsung have filed a petition to invalidate all 19 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, relying on seven new §103 grounds that combine Randall, Wollrab, Obradovich, Sheha, Song, Mura‑Smith and McDonnell references. The petition argues the Board should institute the IPR and cancel the claims, noting no discretionary denial applies.
patent
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
· IPR2025-00268
Sportradar AG petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against SportsCastr's U.S. Patent 10,805,687 covering real‑time sports video and data streaming, arguing the claims are obvious over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑9 and argues against discretionary denial.
patent
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
· IPR2025-00265
Sportradar has filed a petition to invalidate SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent, arguing that claims 1‑9 are obvious over prior art from Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
patent
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
· IPR2025-00194
Digital Global Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate DeepSig’s 11,777,540 patent, asserting that its AI‑driven radio‑predistortion claims are obvious over earlier disclosures by Jüschke, Holt, and Dzierwa. The petition outlines three statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103 and urges institution of the review.
patent
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00190
Micron has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘941 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Dong publication and combinations with Costa and Shirai. The petition seeks institution and argues no discretionary denial is warranted.
patent
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
· IPR2025-00262
Koki Holdings has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Kyocera Senco’s 2019 gas‑spring nailer patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
· IPR2025-00188
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑10 of WSOU’s ’691 MPLS patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
patent
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
· IPR2025-00181
Comcast has filed a petition to review Entropic’s ’275 cable‑TV receiver patent, seeking cancellation of all 20 claims on obviousness grounds.
patent
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00530
Axon and Dedrone have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Airspace Systems’ U.S. Patent 10,249,199 covering UAV discrimination and countermeasure technology. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and requests institution of the proceeding.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
· IPR2025-00529
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Keyless Licensing’s ’144 patent covering buttonless touchscreen phones, asserting obviousness over Pensjo and related references.
patent
Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00525
Axon and Dedrone have filed an IPR petition challenging claim 21 of Airspace Systems’ low‑altitude aircraft identification patent, arguing obviousness over several UAV‑identification references and lack of proper priority. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claim.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
· IPR2025-00526
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Keyless Licensing’s ’602 patent covering edge‑gesture UI elements, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art such as Tseng and Jeong.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Keyless Licensing LLC
· IPR2025-00527
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Keyless Licensing’s ’922 patent, arguing that all 21 claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack proper priority.
patent
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
· IPR2025-00523
Zepp Health has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 75 claims of U.S. Patent 10,278,647, arguing they are obvious over a 2015 academic paper on wrist‑type photoplethysmography. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
patent
Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.
· IPR2025-00510
Linkplay Technology petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sonos’s ’883 patent covering audio device network setup, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial does not apply.
