US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 235 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
· IPR2025-00185
Comcast has filed a petition to cancel all 18 claims of Entropic’s ’438 cable‑network service‑group patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references that the examiner never considered.
patent
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
· IPR2025-00261
Koki Holdings has petitioned an IPR against Kyocera Senco’s 11,034,007 gas‑spring nailer patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over six decades‑old nail‑gun references and challenging claim constructions of “lifter” and “storage chamber.” The petition seeks cancellation of all twenty claims.
patent
Embody, Inc. et al. v.LifeNet Health
· IPR2025-00248
Embody and Zimmer Biomet have filed an IPR seeking cancellation of all 12 claims of LifeNet Health’s 2018 scaffold patent, arguing anticipation by earlier academic publications and obviousness. The petition emphasizes strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
patent
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
· IPR2025-00242
Precision Cancer Technologies has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Oncoustics’ 330 Patent covering ultrasound‑based machine‑learning classification, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Hope‑Simpson, Nair and Azizi.
patent
Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
· IPR2025-00176
Samsung Bioepis has filed an IPR petition challenging 48 claims of Regeneron’s anti‑VEGF ophthalmic formulation patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art formulations and presentation data.
patent
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
· IPR2025-00180
Comcast has filed a petition to review Entropic’s ’275 patent, asserting that all twenty claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Zhang and its combinations. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and seeks cancellation of the claims.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2025-00161
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of SiOnyx’s ’714 image‑sensor patent, alleging anticipation or obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should not deny institution under §314(a).
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2025-00165
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 36 claims of SiOnyx’s ’599 image‑sensor patent, asserting that each claim is obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate given the lack of prior petitions and a stayed ITC case.
patent
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
· IPR2025-00168
Kubota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vermeer’s 9,321,386 patent covering compact tool carriers. The petition relies on Korean KR996, Japanese JP705, and U.S. Bares references to argue obviousness of claims 31‑49, 70‑79, and 86‑87. It also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00236
Curio Bioscience petitions the PTAB to invalidate 13 claims of a spatial transcriptomics patent owned by Prognosys/10x Genomics, alleging obviousness over Cantor and Armani and anticipation by Frisen.
patent
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
· IPR2025-00235
HighLevel has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of ClickFunnels’ website‑builder patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also requests the Board not to deny institution under the Fintiv discretionary standard.
patent
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
· IPR2025-00251
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s 11,871,088 patent covering live‑sports video and data streaming, asserting obviousness over Ellis, Spivey, Herzog and Abulikemu. The petition argues the examiner never considered key prior art and that discretionary denial is improper.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2025-00163
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 79 claims of SiOnyx’s image‑sensor patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Hwang and other references, and urging the Board to deny any discretionary denial.
patent
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
· IPR2025-00167
Kubota seeks to invalidate Vermeer’s compact tool carrier patent by arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution of an IPR covering 31 claims.
patent
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
· IPR2025-00234
HighLevel, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of ClickFunnels' website‑creation patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references. The petition also requests that the Board not invoke discretionary denial under the Fintiv precedent.
patent
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
· IPR2025-00247
ResMed has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cleveland Medical Devices’ ’029 PAP‑therapy patent, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over prior‑art PAP devices and telemedicine systems.
patent
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
· IPR2025-00238
BOE Technology Group petitions the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of Optronic Sciences’ 8,604,471 OLED display patent, arguing obviousness over Hwang and combinations with Godo and Yamashita. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.
patent
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
· IPR2025-00160
ResMed has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of Cleveland Medical Devices’ ’680 patent covering networked PAP therapy systems. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Toge, Kumar, Burton, and Kisner. The Board is asked to institute review.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00221
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of Intellectual Ventures II’s ’889 patent covering closed‑loop power control in CDMA/3G networks. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Dateki patent, the Mate publication, and the Chitrapu publication, which disclose the same F‑DPCH mechanisms before the patent’s priority date.
patent
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00229
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘838 patent, arguing they are obvious over several prior‑art references and that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00222
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Intellectual Ventures’ ’158 patent covering multi‑sensor digital cameras, arguing obviousness over Matsushima, Yu, and Miyazaki and opposing discretionary denial.
patent
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00202
Liberty Mutual has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 27 claims of Intellectual Ventures' 844 patent on the basis of obviousness. The petition argues that the examiner never considered key prior art and that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
· IPR2025-00232
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 11 claims of Zaxcom’s ’207 patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier PTAB decisions.
patent
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
· IPR2025-00225
Globus Medical has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of eleven claims of Spinelogik's spinal fusion patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Blain, Bray, and Steffee references.
