US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 234 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00438
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging Stratasys’s 3‑D‑printing patent (US 10,569,466), asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and reject discretionary denial arguments.
patent
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
· IPR2025-00264
Koki Holdings has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of Kyocera Senco’s 2023 gas‑spring nailer patent, asserting obviousness over several older patents and arguing that the “lifter” term is means‑plus‑function.
patent
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2025-00437
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ optical isolator array patent, arguing anticipation by a Chinese patent and obviousness over that patent combined with a U.S. reference. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
patent
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2025-00436
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ 10,313,024 optical‑module patent, asserting anticipation by two prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute review despite discretionary denial arguments.
patent
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
· IPR2025-00431
Zhuhai CosMX Battery petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑7, 12 and 14‑17 of Ningde Amperex’s ’131 lithium‑ion battery patent, asserting obviousness over multiple foreign and U.S. references.
patent
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2025-00434
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 of Applied Optoelectronics’ 10,379,301 patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated by prior‑art references Shen and Soldano. The petition stresses that these references were not used during prosecution and requests the Board to institute review.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
· IPR2025-00426
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 34 claims of Headwater’s ’868 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Jarvinen and Fox publications. The petition seeks institution of review and argues against discretionary denial.
patent
Nokia of America Corp. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
· IPR2025-00428
Nokia has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s DSL‑crosstalk patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over three prior‑art references that were never considered during prosecution.
patent
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00425
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed a petition to invalidate MES’s ’225 mercury‑removal patent. The petition alleges lack of written‑description support, obviousness over prior art, and anticipation, and urges the PTAB not to deny institution.
patent
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00424
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MES’s 10,589,225 patent covering mercury‑removal methods in coal‑fired power plants. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and anticipation by the Downs‑Boiler reference, and requests that the Board not deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).
patent
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2025-00417
SAP America petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Valtrus’s ’409 patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over Khare and Kirkman. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2025-00416
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 25 claims of Valtrus Innovations' 7,313,575 patent, arguing that the Chen IBM Redbooks publication makes those claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
patent
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2025-00418
SAP America seeks an IPR to invalidate Valtrus’s 6,871,264 patent covering a multi‑processor cache allocation system, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier patents. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
patent
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
· IPR2025-00263
Koki Holdings has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Kyocera's 2022 gas‑spring fastener driving tool patent, asserting obviousness over several older nail‑gun patents and raising means‑plus‑function issues.
patent
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
· IPR2025-00260
Savant Technologies (GE Lighting) petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1 and 11‑14 of Feit Electric’s white‑light LED patent, arguing they are obvious over several LED‑related publications. The petition seeks institution of inter‑partes review.
patent
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00191
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of YMTC’s 3D NAND patent, arguing obviousness over Nishikawa, Lu, and Nishikawa2 references and asserting no discretionary denial factors.
patent
Embody, Inc. et al. v.LifeNet Health
· IPR2025-00249
Embody and Zimmer Biomet have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑8 of LifeNet Health’s 11,318,227 patent covering electrospun collagen scaffolds. They argue obviousness and anticipation based on Huang2, Kuo, and Lee, and request institution of the review.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
· IPR2025-00250
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight claims of NL Giken’s ’236 TV safety‑monitoring patent, alleging obviousness over several pre‑AIA references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted under the Fintiv framework.
patent
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
· IPR2025-00169
Kubota has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of Vermeer’s 9,321,386 patent covering compact tool carriers. The petition relies on foreign patents KR996 and JP705, plus U.S. patents Bares and Beltrami, to argue obviousness. Kubota also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent
ELONG INTERNATIONAL USA INC. et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
· IPR2025-00258
Elong International and Xiamen Longstar have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Feit Electric’s white‑light LED patent, arguing the claims are obvious over several LED‑lighting references. The petition cites Basin‑2007, Krummacher, Hussell and others as prior art.
patent
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
· IPR2025-00252
Genius Sports seeks IPR on SportsCastr’s live‑streaming patent, arguing that 16 claims are obvious over prior art such as Ellis, Herzog, Spivey and Abulikemu, and urging the Board to institute the review.
patent
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
· IPR2025-00241
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1,2,4,6,19,21 of the ’721 Raman‑pump optimization patent, arguing they are obvious over Sugaya and, in combination, over Farmer. The petition stresses prompt filing and argues against discretionary denial.
patent
Lam Research Corp. v.Inpria Corporation
· IPR2025-00256
Lam Research has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Inpria’s ’048 patent covering EUV photoresist deposition. The petition relies on obviousness and anticipation grounds over Meyers, Weidman, Berney, and Molloy, and raises a new‑matter issue. The Board must decide whether to institute the trial.
patent
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00237
Curio Bioscience has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,001,879, asserting lack of written‑description support and that the claims are anticipated by Frisen and obvious over Cantor (with Armani). The petition seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
