US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 241 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00071
Roku has filed a petition to institute IPR on VideoLabs' ’559 patent covering content‑flow control. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Kloba and Robbin and asserts no discretionary denial grounds.
patent
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00066
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 10,598,258, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution under the Fintiv factors and argues that the claims lack patentability. The outcome is pending.
patent
Dr. Falk Pharma GMBH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
· IPR2025-00054
Dr. Falk Pharma has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Ellodi's 11,246,828 patent covering budesonide orally dispersing tablets, arguing obviousness over Dohil, Grother and FDA guidance.
patent
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00069
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 23 claims of GoSecure’s ’697 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on five prior‑art references. The petition argues the Board should institute review and notes that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
· IPR2025-00050
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of NL Giken’s ’592 patent, arguing obviousness over Walker and Chang references and opposing discretionary denial.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00057
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of the ’887 patent, arguing they are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering mobile‑device virtualization and remote desktop technologies.
patent
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
· IPR2025-00031
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 10,655,435, alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art pump‑control references. The petition argues the case meets the Fintiv institutional factors and requests the Board to institute the review.
patent
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00067
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate GoSecure’s 9,106,697 patent covering virtual‑machine‑based malware detection. The petition argues obviousness over Capalik combined with King, Pike, and Farley, and opposes discretionary denial.
patent
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00027
QIAGEN seeks an IPR of Tecan’s ’241 patent covering NGS duplicate‑read detection, asserting that all 16 claims are anticipated or obvious over prior‑art references such as McCloskey, Porreca, and Schmitt.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2025-00065
Samsung seeks IPR cancellation of SiOnyx’s 44‑claim image‑sensor patent, arguing that prior‑art references Alie, Baggenstoss, Haddad204 and Park make the claims obvious and that institution should not be denied under § 314(a).
patent
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00034
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, asserting that the Nakajima reference makes the claims obvious under §103. The petition argues no discretionary denial applies and seeks institution of the review.
patent
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00041
Motorola Mobility and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 11 claims of Multifold’s ’153 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00035
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘604 patent, asserting obviousness over Thimmegowda combined with Lee and Kobayashi. The petition seeks institution and argues no discretionary denial applies.
patent
Arthrex, Inc. et al. v.Medshape, Inc.
· IPR2025-00053
Arthrex has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of Medshape’s ’222 bone‑fixation patent, arguing obviousness over Monassevitch and over a Bolesky‑Hoffman combination. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §314.
patent
Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn, LLC
· IPR2025-00044
Innolux files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 5‑6 of the ‘788 LCD gamma‑correction patent, arguing the claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition requests institution and argues no denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
patent
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00039
Motorola and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Multifold's dual‑screen handheld patent, arguing that the Aono prior‑art reference makes all challenged claims obvious. They request institution and cancellation of claims 1‑6, 11‑14, and 16.
patent
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00028
QIAGEN petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tecan’s ’012 patent covering nucleic‑acid enrichment for NGS, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier academic publications. The petition argues the examiner relied on an unsupported declaration and that no secondary considerations exist.
patent
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
· IPR2025-00048
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Woodbury Wireless’s ’930 MIMO patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Lastinger and Gore references.
patent
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00016
IDT has filed an IPR petition challenging Tecan’s ’108 NGS library‑preparation patent, asserting that the Meyer publication anticipates most claims and that the remaining claims are obvious. The petition also argues against discretionary denial.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
· IPR2025-00025
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑19 of Truesight’s ‘879 patent covering V‑chip‑based parental controls. The petition alleges obviousness over prior art references Sullivan, Leung, and Craner and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
· IPR2024-01451
Bio‑Rad has filed an IPR petition challenging Caltech’s ’921 patent covering multiplex PCR assays, asserting that the claims are fully anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Larson, Saxonov, and Silverbrook.
patent
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01493
Western Digital petitions the PTAB to invalidate 15 claims of a MRAM patent, arguing they are obvious over known MTJ teachings. The petition cites Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai, Parkin and Soukup as prior art and challenges discretionary denial.
patent
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00037
Nokia and four other telecom operators have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of six claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s U.S. Patent 10,616,932, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references (Lin1, Lin2, Zhang). The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d).
patent
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-01486
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’730 biometric‑authentication patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over the Burger and Robinson references.
