US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 236 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2025-00164
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of SiOnyx’s 9,064,764 light‑trapping image sensor patent, arguing that each claim is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00220
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of IV’s ’670 LTE‑MTC patent, arguing they are obvious over Wallen and Berggren. The petition argues that the prior art was not considered during prosecution and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00217
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 12 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Patent 10,952,153 covering uplink power‑control techniques, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
· IPR2025-00226
Globus Medical has filed a petition for inter partes review of Spinelogik’s U.S. Patent 8,460,385 covering a spinal fusion device. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art implants (Moskowitz, Hess) and a combination with Steffee’s curved fasteners, and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑5, 7 and 9.
patent
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
· IPR2025-00195
Garmin has filed an IPR petition challenging Cardiacsense’s ’998 patent covering swimming‑watch technology. The petition alleges lack of written description for a compass and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
· IPR2025-00158
ResMed Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cleveland Medical Devices' U.S. Patent 11,690,512 covering a wearable sleep diagnostic system. The petition argues that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Ciulla, Orbach, and others) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
· IPR2025-00214
Phison Electronics has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all ten claims of Vervain’s ‘240 NAND‑flash patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition cites Gavens, Moshayedi and Sutardja patents and argues that pending district‑court suits do not bar institution.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00219
Tesla seeks IPR institution to invalidate claims 11‑22 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’500 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering uplink power control. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00218
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑12 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’416 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Kim, Vayanos) and the applicant‑admitted background. The petition also contests any discretionary denial by the Board.
patent
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
· IPR2025-00159
ResMed has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of Cleveland Medical Devices' ’921 patent covering a networked PAP system. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Toge, Burton, Kumar, and Kisner. It seeks institution of the review.
patent
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00223
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,985,943, which covers FPGA‑based programmable logic devices for data‑flow processing in servers. The petition asserts obviousness over six prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial.
patent
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
· IPR2025-00215
Phison Electronics Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate all twelve claims of Vervain’s ‘300 NAND flash patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition seeks institution to streamline parallel district‑court litigation.
patent
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00193
Curio Bioscience petitions the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of the ‘030 spatial‑transcriptomics patent, arguing obviousness over Cantor and Armani and anticipation by Frisen, plus lack of written‑description support. The petition also argues that no discretionary denial grounds apply.
patent
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00151
Skechers has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nike’s 9,510,636 footwear patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over several prior‑art knit‑shoe references.
patent
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
· IPR2025-00201
Liberty Mutual and Comerica petition the PTAB to invalidate 63 claims of IV’s ‘Secure Virtual Community Network System’ patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Mehta and RFC‑1383. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00196
Green Revolution Cooling petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑16 of U.S. Patent 10,405,457, arguing obviousness over Best‑2008 combined with Osada and Best‑2012, and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00189
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘666 patent, asserting that claims 17, 19, and 20 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00192
Curio Bioscience petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 11,549,138 covering spatially encoded biological assays, arguing obviousness over Cantor and Armani and anticipation by Frisen, and asserting lack of written description support.
patent
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
· IPR2025-00182
Comcast has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Entropic’s ’275 patent covering a digital TV receiver, seeking cancellation of all 20 claims on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00152
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Charge Fusion’s electric‑vehicle charging patent, arguing they are obvious over existing EV charging systems and GUIs.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Ouraring, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00147
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Oura’s finger‑ring health‑monitor patent, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under the Fintiv provision.
patent
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
· IPR2025-00177
Lenovo has filed an IPR petition challenging Ericsson’s U.S. Patent 10,708,618 covering reference‑picture signaling in video codecs. The petition argues that all 19 claims are obvious over earlier video‑coding disclosures (Mulroy, H.264/AVC, and Raveendran) and requests the Board to institute the review despite parallel litigation.
patent
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00150
Skechers petitions the PTAB to invalidate Nike’s 9,060,562 patent covering knitted shoe uppers, asserting that all 23 claims are anticipated or obvious over prior‑art such as Dua‑592 and Okamoto.
patent
Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00153
Tesla has filed a petition for inter partes review of Charge Fusion’s U.S. Patent 11,631,987, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering EV charging systems and user interfaces.
