US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 243 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Aug 13, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2024-01282
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1 and 2 of Croga Innovations’ VoIP codec‑switching patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent null · Aug 13, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-01273
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,785,759 owned by ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. The challenge asserts that the claims related to numerology bandwidth determination in wireless systems are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
This initial filing details multiple grounds of obviousness, combining various prior art references including Noh, Tooher, Islam, Jiang, and Miao.
patent null · Aug 13, 2024
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
· IPR2024-01268
Petitioners, including 3Shape A/S, have filed an IPR challenging the validity of Medit Corporation's patent claims related to 3D scanning and stitching technology. The central argument asserts that the claimed invention is obvious over prior art references Kriveshko and Zhang when combining global motion optimization techniques. This challenges the scope of a major patent in the computer vision market.
patent null · Aug 13, 2024
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
· IPR2024-01240
Silicon Motion Inc. has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging K. Mizra LLC's patent covering digital signal processing and calibration methods. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on a combination of multiple prior art references.
patent · Aug 13, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
· IPR2024-01217
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging 14 claims of ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s '658 patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The arguments center on combining various prior art references, including Lindh, Tooher, Kim, and 3GPP specifications, to demonstrate that the claimed LTE network methods were predictable.
patent null · Aug 13, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL GIKEN INCORPORATED
· IPR2024-01161
Amazon and other petitioners filed a petition challenging NL GIKEN INCORPORATED's '615 patent, asserting obviousness in Smart TV remote control systems. The challenge relies on combining prior art references Cooper and Slotznick to invalidate claims related to universal manual operations.
patent denied · Aug 13, 2024
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
· PGR2024-00049
The PTAB denied the institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition challenging claims related to electrically-powered aerosol generators. The Board found that the petitioner failed to meet its burden of showing a likelihood of unpatentability, despite narrowing claim construction on 'smoking article' to devices containing tobacco.
patent instituted · Aug 13, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2024-01283
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Croga Innovations Ltd. regarding network security claims, arguing obviousness over combinations of Jeffries, LaBine, and Ishaya. The Board found that the strong showing of unpatentability on the merits outweighed factors favoring denial, leading to institution.
patent instituted · Aug 13, 2024
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2024-01282
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of its IPR against Croga Innovations Ltd. regarding VoIP bandwidth management claims. The Board found that Cisco demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing obviousness over combinations of prior art references.
patent denied · Aug 13, 2024
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01280
The PTAB denied institution for the IPR challenge against RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., citing efficiency concerns. The Board found that despite arguments regarding material error and prior art relevance, denying institution served the integrity of the system given the parallel ITC investigation.
patent · Aug 13, 2024
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01280
The Director granted review in an IPR case (IPR2024-01280), vacating the denial of institution. The proceeding is remanded for parties to clarify arguments regarding discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and parallel ITC litigation.
patent denied · Aug 13, 2024
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01280
The PTAB denied Ecto World's petition to institute IPR against RAI Strategic Holdings regarding a tobacco-containing smoking article, citing the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error despite using previously presented prior art.
patent instituted · Aug 13, 2024
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
· IPR2024-01240
Silicon Motion Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against K. Mizra LLC's patent, arguing that the technology for high-speed digital communication channel calibration was obvious over various prior art references. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
patent instituted · Aug 13, 2024
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL GIKEN INCORPORATED
· IPR2024-01161
Amazon's IPR petition against NL GIKEN regarding a TV viewing experience patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed on all 16 challenged claims, focusing heavily on obviousness over Cooper and Slotznick.
patent instituted · Aug 11, 2024
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
· IPR2025-00156
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care likely to prevail on at least one claim, primarily on obviousness grounds involving hemostasis valve features.
patent instituted · Aug 11, 2024
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
· IPR2025-00156
Imperative Care has successfully instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 hemostasis valve patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one claim and ordered the trial to proceed.
patent · Aug 11, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00072
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,233,790 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential, effectively moving to terminate the proceeding.
patent · Aug 11, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00072
Roku and VideoLabs have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Roku’s ’790 patent. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317 and Board practice allowing termination when no merits have been decided.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 11, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00072
Roku and VideoLabs settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,233,790, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.
patent · Aug 11, 2024
Tesla, Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00152
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Charge Fusion’s electric‑vehicle charging patent, arguing they are obvious over existing EV charging systems and GUIs.
patent · Aug 11, 2024
Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00153
Tesla has filed a petition for inter partes review of Charge Fusion’s U.S. Patent 11,631,987, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering EV charging systems and user interfaces.
patent · Aug 11, 2024
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 · Aug 11, 2024
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
· IPR2025-00088
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of U.S. Patent 11,050,654, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Aug 11, 2024
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00072
Roku has filed an IPR petition challenging VideoLabs’ 7,233,790 patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over the Chatani and Mulligan disclosures and requesting the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
