US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 24 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent denied · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two PTAB decisions involving Netlist’s memory patents, leaving the Board’s rulings in place.
patent instituted · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
The USPTO initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR involving aesthetic device patents, staying the proceeding after an ITC finding of commercial success and non‑invalidity.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 memory‑module patent. The PTAB found all twenty claims obvious over prior‑art references and declared them unpatentable.
patent all challenged claims upheld · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
Samsung Electronics challenged Netlist’s ’608 memory‑module patent in an IPR. The Board held that the prior art (Hiraishi, Butt, Tokuhiro, Ellsberry) did not teach the claimed ‘data path’ limitations and found no claims unpatentable.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
Samsung successfully challenged claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 memory‑module patent, with the PTAB finding the claim obvious over the Ellsberry reference and unpatentable under §103(a). The Board’s claim construction limited “rank” to a single device, supporting the obviousness finding.
patent · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
A PTAB memorandum directs that all grounds in IPR and PGR petitions be decided in the final written decision when no oral hearing has occurred, aiming for streamlined rulings. The change applies to the Samsung‑Netlist IPR but is a board‑wide procedural update.
patent denied · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of two PTAB final written decisions involving Netlist’s memory patents, citing the Director’s recusal and delegating authority to the Deputy Under Secretary.
patent denied · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s final written decision in IPR2022-00615, leaving the decision unchanged. The denial stemmed from Director Vidal’s recusal and delegation of authority to Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent.
patent · Oct 27, 2025
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
· IPR2026-00058
TSMC has filed an IPR petition against Marlin Semiconductor’s U.S. Pat. 7,288,822, asserting that all fourteen claims are unpatentable. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue obviousness and anticipation under §§ 102 and 103.
patent · Oct 27, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2026-00017
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Netlist’s 9,824,035 DDR3 memory module patent, asserting that claims 2‑9 and 14‑20 are obvious over a combination of five prior‑art references.
patent · Oct 24, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
· IPR2026-00086
Samsung Electronics files an IPR petition challenging Massively Broadband’s ’700 Patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior‑art references Daley, Aaron and Scherzer. The petition seeks institution of the review.
patent · Oct 24, 2025
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
· IPR2026-00045
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition relies on 35 U.S.C. §103 and presents detailed claim‑by‑claim arguments.
patent · Oct 24, 2025
Dead Air Silencers et al. v.Jarvis Arms LLC
· IPR2026-00013
Dead Air Silencers has filed an IPR seeking cancellation of ten claims of Jarvis Arms’ firearm suppressor patent, arguing that the claimed features were already known in the art. The petition relies on eight obviousness grounds citing Belykov, Noonan, Muceus, Slack and Sclafani. The Board has not yet ruled.
patent instituted · Oct 24, 2025
Dead Air Silencers et al. v.Jarvis Arms LLC
· IPR2026-00013
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00013, allowing Dead Air Silencers et al. to challenge Jarvis Arms LLC's patent 12018906 after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent · Oct 23, 2025
Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.LG Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01579
LG Display submits a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Tianma’s IPR petition, arguing that the prior‑art does not render any of the 19 claims obvious and that the petitioner’s claim constructions are inconsistent.
patent · Oct 23, 2025
Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.LG Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01579
Tianma seeks an IPR to invalidate LG Display’s OLED touch‑screen patent (US 11,251,394). The petition alleges obviousness over six prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all 19 claims.
patent · Oct 22, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
· IPR2026-00033
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 63 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’337 patent covering broadband wireless repeaters. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious in view of five prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review.
patent instituted · Oct 22, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Kannuu Pty. Ltd.
· IPR2026-00072
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00072, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Kannuu's patent 11200252.
patent instituted · Oct 21, 2025
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2026-00070
Toyota’s IPR petition challenging Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑profile patent was instituted after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 10‑20.
patent instituted · Oct 21, 2025
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2026-00070
Toyota Motor Corp. sought to invalidate Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑profile patent. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of success and instituted the IPR, focusing on obviousness over several prior‑art references.
patent · Oct 21, 2025
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
· IPR2026-00069
GE Healthcare petitions to invalidate Johns Hopkins’s 11,938,201 patent covering FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceuticals, arguing that claims 1‑3 are obvious over US‑633, US‑121, Meletta and Jansen references.
patent · Oct 21, 2025
Terumo BCT, Inc v.Haemonetics Corporation
· PGR2026-00006
Terumo BCT has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent. The challenger asserts anticipation, obviousness, lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, and multiple §112 deficiencies. The petition is pending PTAB institution.
patent · Oct 21, 2025
Kia America, Inc. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· PGR2026-00008
Kia and Toyota have filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition challenging Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑key sharing patent (US 12,337,715). Petitioners allege obviousness over four prior‑art references and assert lack of written description for key claim limitations. They seek institution and cancellation of claims 1‑24.
patent · Oct 21, 2025
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
· IPR2026-00070
Toyota seeks to invalidate Emerging Automotive’s U.S. Patent 12,337,716 covering cloud‑based vehicle settings by alleging obviousness over multiple prior art references. The petition requests the Board to institute an IPR and cancel all 13 claims.
