US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 232 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00518
LG Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Maxell’s 6,856,760 patent covering recording media and thumbnail images. The petition asserts that claims 1‑9 are obvious over six prior‑art references and argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution.
patent
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
· IPR2025-00524
Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks an IPR to invalidate 20 claims of CATL’s (Ningde Amperex) lithium‑ion battery electrode patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
· IPR2025-00504
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging KPN’s 8,549,151 patent covering SIP/RTSP gateway functionality. The petition relies on three obviousness grounds citing Alston, Gateva, Mela, and Fajardo. Institutional decision is pending.
patent
Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.
· IPR2025-00509
Linkplay Technology has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Sonos’s audio playback patent (U.S. 10,853,023) by asserting anticipation and obviousness over two prior‑art references, Barbe and Richenstein. The petition also argues that discretionary denial does not apply.
patent
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00517
Sandisk and Western Digital petition to invalidate Polaris PowerLED’s ’968 patent covering interrupt coalescing in memory controllers, arguing obviousness over Borchers and industry standards. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.
patent
Apotex Inc. et al. v.Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited
· IPR2025-00514
Apotex petitions the PTAB to review US 7,919,499, covering a long‑acting naltrexone formulation, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Comer, Nuwayser, Rubio and Wright. The petition cites a prior IPR that was instituted and later terminated, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
CSPC Pharmaceutical Group Limited et al. v.Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-00505
CSPC Pharmaceutical Group has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of Ipsen’s U.S. Patent 11,344,552 covering a liposomal irinotecan regimen for metastatic pancreatic cancer, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references.
patent
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00515
Sandisk and Western Digital seek to invalidate Polaris PowerLED's ’085 flash‑memory patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art ECC techniques. They request institution and argue discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00500
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
· IPR2025-00502
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of KPN’s ’669 patent, asserting obviousness over Widegren, Widegren‑793, ETSI TS 183 063 and Astrom, and urging the Board not to deny institution.
patent
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00499
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of Micron's 3D NAND patent, citing anticipation by Lung and obviousness over Park, Fukuzumi, and Mokhlesi. The petitioner argues discretionary denial does not apply and seeks cancellation of claims 8, 13, and 21.
patent
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00487
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, arguing they are obvious over Blaser, Calder, and Schmidt-449. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00498
Yangtze Memory Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate Micron’s 3D NAND patent (U.S. 8,803,214) on anticipation and obviousness grounds, citing Kang, Fukuzumi and Ahn references. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and seeks institution of review.
patent
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
· IPR2025-00480
Home Depot petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 15 claims of H2 Intellect’s 296 patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art advertising systems (Elliott, Jacob) and a location‑search patent (Musk). The petition includes detailed claim constructions and asserts that discretionary denial is not warranted.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
· IPR2025-00496
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging 14 claims of Four Batons Wireless’s patent on real‑time wireless interface selection, asserting obviousness over Guo and Neave references.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Four Batons Wireless, LLC
· IPR2025-00494
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Four Batons Wireless’s ’436 patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art network‑selection references. The petition argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
patent
Nokia of America Corp. v.ADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.
· IPR2025-00492
Nokia petitions the PTAB to invalidate 11 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s DSL crosstalk patent, arguing obviousness over Rezvani and Cendrillon I, with an additional reliance on the G.992.3 standard for claim 11.
patent
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
· IPR2025-00497
EP Family Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Office Kick's U.S. Patent 11,910,926 covering a vertically adjustable desktop workspace, arguing that all asserted claims are obvious over six prior‑art references.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2025-00483
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 36 claims of Headwater Research's ’510 patent covering automated credential porting for mobile devices, asserting obviousness over Salmela and Rishy-Maharaj publications.
patent
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.
· IPR2025-00491
Yealink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Barco’s video‑conferencing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and examiner error.
patent
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00490
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18 of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Elnozahy and Draves references and lack written‑description support. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
· IPR2025-00473
Charter Communications petitions the PTAB to invalidate Iarnach Technologies’ EPON configuration patent, asserting that all 32 claims are obvious over a body of prior art. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial would be improper under §§314 and 325(d).
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2025-00484
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of Headwater Research’s ’510 patent on the basis that a combination of prior‑art references makes the claims obvious under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that the proceeding should be instituted.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2025-00482
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Headwater Research’s patent on security techniques for device‑assisted services, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
