US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 237 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
· IPR2025-00184
Comcast has filed a petition to cancel all 18 claims of Entropic’s ’438 cable‑network patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references that the examiner never considered.
patent
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd.
· IPR2025-00173
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of DH International’s ’333 patent covering a portable electronic device with an invariable activation command, asserting obviousness over McGregor, Palmer, and Tuttle references.
patent
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
· IPR2025-00145
Sinclair Pharma has filed an IPR petition challenging HydraFacial's skin‑treatment patent (US 11,865,287). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and requests cancellation of 41 claims. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
patent
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
· IPR2025-00171
Kubota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vermeer’s U.S. Patent 10,202,266 covering compact tool carriers. The challenger relies on Korean patent KR996 and U.S. patents Bares and Beltrami to argue obviousness under §§102/103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is improper.
patent
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00117
Micron Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND word‑line contact patent. The petition asserts obviousness over Kim, Park, and Fang references and argues there are no discretionary grounds to deny institution.
patent
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
· IPR2025-00183
Comcast has filed an IPR petition seeking to cancel all 18 claims of Entropic’s ’438 cable‑network service‑group patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial rules do not apply.
patent
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
· IPR2025-00116
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Miracor’s LVAD patent (US 11,754,077). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues the petition is not barred. The Board’s decision on institution is pending.
patent
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
· IPR2025-00175
Innoscience seeks to invalidate all 17 claims of Infineon’s 8,686,562 patent covering III‑V semiconductor electrical contacts, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over four prior‑art references.
patent
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
· IPR2025-00136
Aardevo North America challenges Agventure's 2021 potato hybrid seed patent, asserting that all ten claims are anticipated or obvious based on decades of prior art. The petition lists nine grounds covering anticipation and obviousness over publications dating back to 1971. No secondary considerations are offered.
patent
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00118
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of Yangtze Memory’s ESD bus patent, arguing obviousness over Yoshinaga, Saint, and Haralabidis and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
patent
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
· IPR2025-00170
Kubota has filed an IPR petition challenging all 36 claims of Vermeer’s ’750 patent covering compact tool carriers. The challenger relies on Korean patent KR996, and U.S. patents Bares and Beltrami to argue obviousness under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
· IPR2025-00174
Ericsson has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Motorola’s 5G DMRS patent (U.S. 11,184,130). The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness based on 3GPP standards documents TR 38.912 and two R1 technical reports.
patent
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
· IPR2025-00172
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of DH International’s ’294 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Suga and Gorsuch. The petition requests institution and argues no discretionary denial grounds exist.
patent
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
· IPR2025-00113
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Miracor’s LVAD patent (U.S. 11,376,415). The petition argues that the claims are obvious in view of four prior‑art references covering magnetically driven rotary pumps.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2025-00162
Samsung has filed an IPR petition to cancel 79 claims of SiOnyx’s 10,224,359 image‑sensor patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Iida and other prior art. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial would be improper.
patent
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00111
BabyBjörn has filed an IPR petition challenging The Ergo Baby Carrier’s adjustable child‑carrier patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing indefiniteness of a key claim term.
patent
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
· IPR2025-00114
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging Miracor Medical’s U.S. Patent 11,572,879 covering an implantable LVAD. The petition asserts that four prior‑art references render all asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The case is currently pending before the PTAB.
patent
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
· IPR2025-00109
Jumio Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate FaceTec's facial‑authentication patent (U.S. 11,874,910) on obviousness grounds, citing multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d) is improper.
patent
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
· IPR2025-00115
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging Miracor Medical’s 11,674,517 LVAD patent, asserting that all 19 challenged claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the prior art discloses every claim limitation and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
· IPR2025-00157
ResMed has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cleveland Medical Devices' ’284 patent covering a networked PAP therapy system, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior PAP and telemedicine technologies.
patent
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00110
BabyBjörn has filed an IPR petition challenging The Ergo Baby Carrier’s 2023 adjustable child carrier patent, asserting that all 24 claims are anticipated or obvious over existing baby‑carrier manuals and patents.
patent
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
· IPR2025-00112
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Miracor Medical’s 357 Patent covering a magnetically levitated LVAD. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue that all challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
· IPR2025-00108
Jumio Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate FaceTec’s facial‑authentication patent, arguing that its claimed camera‑optics technique is obvious over prior art such as Derakhshani, Tanii, Zhang, Tahk, and Suzuki. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on claims 1‑24.
patent
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
· IPR2025-00102
LifeScan, Senseonics and Ascensia have filed a petition to review CellSpin Soft’s U.S. Patent 11,234,121 covering a Bluetooth‑enabled data capture device. They assert the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack written‑description support, seeking institution of the IPR.
