US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 233 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00479
AMD and Pensando have filed a petition for inter partes review of XtreamEdge’s U.S. Patent No. 10,944,634, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art bandwidth‑management patents. The petition challenges all 20 claims and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-00474
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 8,593,580 covering a projection-type display apparatus. The petition relies on eight obviousness grounds combining prior art such as Ishino, Erchak, Li ’415, Uchiyama, and Bakker, and argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
patent
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-00476
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8, 10, and 12 of Maxell’s U.S. Patent 9,547,226, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Kurosaki, Miyamae, and Kitano references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00475
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Maxell’s 9,322,530 patent covering a projection‑type light source device. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103.
patent
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00478
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of the ’596 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references that teach reservation registers and hardware queues. The petition argues the references were never considered during prosecution and seeks institution of the review.
patent
EP Family Corp. v.Office Kick Inc.
· IPR2025-00471
EP Family Corp. has filed a petition to cancel Office Kick’s ’843 patent covering a vertically adjustable desktop workspace, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references.
patent
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2025-00467
WebGroup Czech Republic petitions the PTAB to invalidate DISH's adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references. The Board is asked to institute the IPR.
patent
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2025-00469
Webgroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of DISH Technologies' multi‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references.
patent
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
· IPR2025-00466
Padagis seeks inter partes review of Neurelis’s 11,793,786 patent covering intranasal benzodiazepine solutions, arguing that all 27 claims are obvious over prior art and that the patent owner is estopped from contesting issues already decided in a prior IPR.
patent
Full-Metal-Power B.V. v.InFocus Downhole Solutions USA LLC
· IPR2025-00391
Full-Metal-Power B.V. filed a corrected exhibit set for its IPR challenge to InFocus Downhole Solutions' U.S. Patent 10,676,992, addressing labeling errors.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
· IPR2025-00460
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 17 claims of Cerence’s ’291 speech‑synthesis patent, asserting obviousness over Walker, Matsumoto, Malsheen and Bellegarda references. The petition argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00461
Samsung has filed an IPR petition against Optimum Imaging’s ’805 patent, arguing that all challenged claims are obvious over prior art and urging the Board to institute the review.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00462
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’339 patent covering in‑camera aberration correction, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
LifeVac, LLC v.DCStar Inc.
· IPR2025-00454
LifeVac has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate DCStar’s 11,478,575 patent covering an anti‑choking suction device. The petition relies on Chinese reference Zhongnan and Korean reference Yuchang to argue obviousness of all 17 claims and urges the Board not to deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company
· IPR2025-00458
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Cerence’s ’671 patent, arguing they are obvious over existing text‑to‑speech technologies. The petition also argues that discretionary factors favor instituting the review.
patent
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
· IPR2025-00455
NeoGenomics seeks IPR of Natera’s ’596 patent covering liquid‑biopsy methods, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple pre‑2015 publications and that the examiner erred. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial, urging the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
patent
Celltrion, Inc. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
· IPR2025-00456
Celltrion seeks IPR institution to invalidate all 50 claims of Regeneron’s US 11,084,865, arguing anticipation by US432 and lack of written description for glycosylation and stability limits.
patent
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00453
Eunsung Global Corp. petitions the PTAB to cancel HydraFacial's 11,446,477 skin‑treatment patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references.
patent
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00452
Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of HydraFacial’s ’607 skin‑treatment patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art microdermabrasion references.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
· IPR2025-00448
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review challenging Vasu Holdings' patent covering Wi‑Fi/cellular handover. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asks the PTAB to institute the review.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
· IPR2025-00446
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Vasu Holdings’ 8,886,181 patent covering seamless Wi‑Fi‑to‑cellular handover. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial does not apply.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
· IPR2025-00449
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Vasu Holdings’ ’281 patent covering wireless handover. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
patent
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00445
Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of HydraFacial's microdermabrasion console patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner never considered the cited combinations and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-00444
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Maxell’s ’729 electric‑camera patent, arguing that all four claims are obvious over prior‑art cameras. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cites favorable discretionary‑denial factors.
