US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 239 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00137
Verizon and co‑petitioners seek to invalidate a 5G resource‑allocation patent owned by Pegasus Wireless, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art standards and publications. The petition requests the PTAB to institute the IPR and cancel all 20 challenged claims.
patent
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00143
Skechers has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nike’s 9,986,781 patent covering knitted footwear uppers. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary factors do not support denial of institution.
patent
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00138
Cellco Partnership and other major carriers petition the PTAB to institute an IPR against Pegasus Wireless Innovation's ’931 patent covering MTC uplink control channel resource allocation, asserting obviousness over standard 3GPP references. The petition argues the Board should not deny institution under §325(d) or §314(a).
patent
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00134
TCL Electronics has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Maxell’s U.S. Patent 10,650,780 covering a display apparatus that uses USB and wireless LAN. The petition relies on the Lawther prior‑art reference to argue obviousness of claims 1‑11, 13, and 15‑20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00141
Skechers has filed an IPR petition challenging Nike’s U.S. Patent 8,266,749 covering knitted textile uppers for footwear, asserting that all 21 claims are anticipated or obvious over prior‑art references Orei, McDonald, Nishida and Guenther.
patent
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
· IPR2025-00139
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of U.S. Patent 11,208,878 covering a modular switchgear system for oilfield fracturing equipment, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
· IPR2025-00133
Shopify has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,488,237, alleging anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner overlooked critical teachings and requests the Board to institute review.
patent
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
· IPR2025-00132
Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of DKR Consulting’s ’995 e‑commerce widget patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
· IPR2025-00131
Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 10,846,785, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Dierks and Johnston. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC
· IPR2025-00130
Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,455,678, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner overlooked key references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00120
TCL Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Maxell’s 10,375,341 patent covering a multi‑user video display system, asserting that all four claims are obvious over the Acharya prior‑art publication.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00061
Google and Motorola have filed an IPR petition to invalidate ten claims of Multifold's UI patent, arguing obviousness over Purcell/Nicholas and Gillespie/Yook prior art. The petition also challenges discretionary denial and seeks institution.
patent
Cipla Limited v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
· IPR2025-00033
Cipla has filed an IPR petition challenging Gilead’s 2023 ‘802 patent covering a bictegravir/TAF/FTC single‑tablet HIV regimen, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Sterlite Technologies Inc. v.AFL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC
· IPR2025-00127
Sterlite Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of AFL Telecommunications' optical‑fiber cable patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
· IPR2025-00062
Zepp Health has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 15 claims of Slyde Analytics’ smartwatch power‑mode patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also requests that the Board not deny institution under discretionary provisions.
patent
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00119
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of YMTC’s 3D NAND ‘254 patent, asserting that the Fujiki publication renders the claims obvious under §103 and that no discretionary denial applies.
patent
Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00032
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,563,338, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering EV charging, GUI interfaces, and HVAC control. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
patent
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
· IPR2025-00056
Dr. Falk Pharma has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Ellodi's 11,260,061 patent covering orally disintegrating corticosteroid tablets. The petition relies on Perrett, Dohil2009, and Venkatesh as prior art to argue obviousness under §103.
patent
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
· IPR2025-00055
Dr. Falk Pharma has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 42 claims of Ellodi's ’407 patent covering orally disintegrating corticosteroid tablets, arguing obviousness over Dohil, Grother, Venkatesh and FDA guidance.
patent
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00036
Nokia, Ericsson, AT&T, Verizon and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Pegasus’s 5G slice‑aware handover patent, arguing obviousness over multiple 3GPP standards and that the prior art was not raised during prosecution.
patent
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2025-00030
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of ParkerVision’s ’593 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution under the Fintiv provision.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
· IPR2025-00101
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging KP Innovations’ U.S. Patent 10,499,168, asserting that claims 18‑21 are anticipated or obvious over earlier camera‑carousel and dual‑camera mobile phone references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2025-00163
Samsung Electronics filed a petition to challenge SiOnyx's U.S. Patent No. 10,224,359.
patent
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00098
Yangtze Memory Technologies has filed an IPR petition against Micron’s 8,945,996 patent covering 3D NAND memory fabrication, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing that PTAB discretion does not apply.
