US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 242 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn LLC
· IPR2025-00043
Innolux has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of 12 claims of U.S. Patent 7,233,305 covering gamma‑correction ICs for LCDs, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing that earlier procedural deficiencies have been remedied.
patent
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
· IPR2025-00017
Arashi Vision (Insta360) has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of GoPro’s 10,529,052 patent on the ground of obviousness over three prior‑art references (Okubo, Sokeila, Eder). The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under FINTIV or § 325(d).
patent
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00026
QIAGEN has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Tecan’s ’357 sequencing patent, arguing that the invention was fully disclosed in earlier barcoding and sequencing literature.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-01503
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’833 HEVC video‑compression patent, asserting obviousness over Rusert, Zheng, Nakamura and WD4. The petition argues the examiner ignored critical prior art and seeks institution of the review.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-01507
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,996,693 patent covering dynamic and static data processing. The petition asserts obviousness over IBM’s Foster and Williams publications and seeks cancellation of 18 claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00018
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Sheha and a new set of Randall‑based grounds. The petition asserts no discretionary denial grounds and requests institution.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2024-01505
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 9,571,833 patent on HEVC motion‑vector prediction, arguing obviousness over Rusert/Zheng and Nakamura/WD4 and disputing the examiner’s allowance.
patent
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2024-01502
IDT seeks to invalidate Tecan's ’399 NGS patent by alleging obviousness over Iafrate/Kivioja and anticipation/obviousness over Bielas, and requests the PTAB to institute the IPR.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-01485
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Proxense’s biometric‑authentication patent, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references. The petition argues the Board should institute the review and reject discretionary denial arguments.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00019
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and arguing no discretionary denial grounds exist.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00021
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 19 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
patent
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
· IPR2024-01487
First Quality Enterprises has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Essity's 9,308,138 absorbent article patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2024-01506
IDT has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Tecan’s ’241 patent, arguing that the claims are fully anticipated or obvious in view of Kivioja (2011) and Bielas (2013) disclosures.
patent
Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v.Asetek Danmark A/S et al.
· IPR2024-01497
Cooler Master has filed a petition to cancel claims 1‑7 of Asetek’s liquid‑cooling patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and citing a prior IPR that cancelled similar claims.
patent
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
· IPR2025-00013
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s ’313 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art patents Diener and Shaffer. The petition argues the Board should not deny institution and seeks a finding of unpatentability.
patent
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
· IPR2024-01490
Slack and Salesforce have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 30 claims of Wrinkl’s ’731 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art chat‑interface patents.
patent
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
· IPR2024-01432
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Cyandia’s ’948 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over IBM WebSphere documentation combined with the Austin‑Lane publication.
patent
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01491
Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 41 claims of HydraFacial's skin‑treatment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition asserts that the examiner never considered the Karasiuk‑Palmer, Greenberg, and Trueba teachings and that discretionary denial is not warranted.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
· IPR2024-01475
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate eight claims of Haptic’s ‘738 patent covering gesture‑based control of terminal devices. The petition relies on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Murakoshi, Stewart, Sachs, Orr, Li and iFixit.
patent
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
· IPR2025-00010
Innoscience America petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Infineon's 9,070,755 transistor patent, seeking cancellation of all 14 claims on the basis of anticipation and obviousness over Fujishima and related prior art. The petition argues that discretionary denial is improper and requests the Board find the claims unpatentable.
patent
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
· IPR2024-01498
Dr. Squatch, LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Procter & Gamble’s deodorant‑stick patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack written‑description support.
patent
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01447
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all four claims of U.S. Patent 8,405,134, which covers MRAM technology. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai, and Parkin, and challenges any discretionary denial of institution.
patent
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
· IPR2024-01456
Kangxi Communications has filed an IPR petition challenging Skyworks' 9,450,579 patent covering RF switch designs. The petition asserts obviousness over Huang and Seshimo references and argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2024-01500
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications' U.S. Patent 7,463,703 covering multi‑user detection. The petition asserts that all five claims are obvious under §103 by combining prior‑art references such as Brommer, Lilleberg, Hottinen, Learned, ElGamal, Frank and Zha.
