US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 238 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
· IPR2025-00107
Jumio Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate FaceTec’s facial‑authentication patent, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art such as Derakhshani, Tanii, Zhang and Tahk, and that discretionary denial is improper.
patent
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
· IPR2025-00106
Jumio has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of FaceTec’s facial‑authentication patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
patent
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
· IPR2025-00104
LifeScan, Senseonics and Ascensia have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Cellspin Soft’s 8,904,030 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several Bluetooth‑related prior arts and lack priority. The petition also cites discretionary factors favoring institution.
patent
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
· IPR2025-00103
LifeScan and co‑petitioners seek IPR of Cellspin Soft’s 9,900,766 patent, asserting that claims 1‑15 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack valid priority. They also highlight discretionary factors favoring institution.
patent
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
· IPR2025-00156
Imperative Care seeks an IPR on Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 catheter‑hemostasis valve patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and related references. The petition argues the preamble term “aspiration” is non‑limiting and requests the Board to institute the review.
patent
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
· IPR2025-00096
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7, 10, and 12‑13 of Miracor’s U.S. Patent 11,351,356 covering a catheter‑based LVAD. The petition argues that four prior‑art references disclose every claim limitation, making the claims obvious under §103. The Board has not yet ruled on institution or denial.
patent
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
· IPR2025-00094
Innoscience has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Infineon’s 8,264,003 GaN cascode patent, arguing that each claim is obvious over known prior‑art combinations. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is improper.
patent
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2025-00100
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition challenging all 24 claims of Daedalus Prime’s ’838 patent covering a hardware security engine for secure communications. The petition argues obviousness based on prior art combinations and seeks institution of the review.
patent
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
· IPR2025-00090
American Axle seeks IPR on Neapco’s 11,434,958 patent covering a joint‑assembly with an access window. The petition argues the claims are anticipated by the 2016 Jeep Renegade service manual and obvious over that manual combined with Krude ʼ422 and Sugiyama. No secondary considerations are shown, and the petitioner urges the Board to institute the IPR.
patent
Nuvei Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Autoscribe Corporation
· IPR2025-00089
Nuvei Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Autoscribe’s ’621 patent covering online payment tokenization. The challenger asserts the claims are obvious over prior art references Stringfellow, Kloster, and Carlson.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-00002
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Netlist’s 11,880,319 patent covering memory‑module signaling. The petition relies on obviousness over Hazelzet combined with JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang, and Kim references, and cites prior IPR estoppel. The Board has yet to rule.
patent
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
· IPR2025-00091
American Axle has filed an IPR petition challenging Neapco’s 11,598,376 drivetrain joint‑assembly patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated by a 2016 Jeep Renegade service manual and obvious in view of that manual combined with Krude ’422 and Sugiyama.
patent
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00084
Ericsson and several industry partners have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 12 claims of U.S. Patent 11,219,000, which covers uplink control channel resource allocation in 5G NR. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art such as Yan, Takeda, Marinier, and a 3GPP submission, and challenges discretionary denial arguments.
patent
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00149
Rocket Media (Launch Labs) petitions the PTAB to invalidate 36 claims of Fullthrottle’s ad‑tracking patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
patent
MediaTek, Inc. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
· IPR2025-00085
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 12 claims of Redstone Logics’ ’339 patent covering multi‑core processor voltage and clock management, arguing obviousness over several prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute the review.
patent
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00144
Skechers has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Nike’s 9,918,511 footwear patent, arguing they are obvious over decades‑old knitting references. The petition also notes that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2025-00074
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Proxense’s ’289 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
· IPR2025-00155
Trove Brands has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of CamelBak’s 11,684,187 patent covering drink containers with removable caps. The petition relies on prior art from Kiyota, Choi, Park, and Ribarits to argue obviousness and asserts a means‑plus‑function construction for the “user release mechanism.”
patent
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00135
TCL has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Maxell’s U.S. Pat. 10,219,020, seeking to invalidate claims covering a display apparatus controlled by a mobile terminal. The petition relies on Bennett and Nashida prior‑art references combined with POSITA knowledge to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00148
Rocket Media (Launch Labs) petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Fullthrottle’s ’947 patent on obviousness grounds, citing Doughty, Van Boucq, and Maginnis. The petition argues no secondary considerations and opposes discretionary denial.
patent
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
· IPR2025-00049
Digital Global Systems petitions to invalidate DeepSig’s 10,581,469 patent covering machine‑learning‑based radio predistortion. The challenger asserts obviousness over earlier AI‑enabled predistortion disclosures (Jüschke, Holt, and Dzierwa) under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
TROVE BRANDS, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
· IPR2025-00146
Trove Brands has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate CamelBak's 10,165,879 patent covering removable cap assemblies for drink containers, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
patent
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00142
Skechers has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nike’s ’484 footwear patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art flat‑knitting references. The petition argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
patent
TROVE BRANDS, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
· IPR2025-00140
Trove Brands has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate CamelBak’s 11,851,250 drink‑bottle patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art cap‑assembly references.
