US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 244 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
· IPR2024-01361
Cholla Energy and OBM have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against LANCIUM's 11,283,261 patent covering behind‑the‑meter flexible datacenters, arguing that all 16 claims are obvious over existing green‑energy datacenter literature.
patent
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
· IPR2025-00012
Charter Communications petitions the PTAB to invalidate Adaptive Spectrum’s ’398 patent covering Wi‑Fi performance optimization, asserting that all 25 claims are obvious over prior art (Diener and Shaffer). The petition also argues against discretionary denial under § 314(a).
patent
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00006
Runergy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Trina Solar’s 009 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering TOPCon solar cell structures.
patent
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
· IPR2024-01377
POSCO seeks IPR cancellation of ArcelorMittal’s hot‑stamped coated steel patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
· IPR2024-01477
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Truesight’s ’803 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of eight prior‑art references covering kiosk‑based streaming, authentication, and removable media.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01337
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Headwater Research’s ’110 patent on data‑usage billing. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and argues against discretionary denial. A stipulation not to pursue the same issues in parallel district‑court litigation is also included.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
· IPR2024-01363
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Varia Holdings’ ’947 RFID patent, asserting that all 32 claims are obvious over prior‑art Bluetooth/RFID references. The petition seeks institution and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01374
FUJIFILM and a coalition of camera makers have filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’266 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple pre‑2005 camera‑technology patents. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED et al. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
· IPR2024-01336
Qualcomm files an IPR petition targeting Cobblestone’s 7,924,802 patent, asserting that its multi‑carrier claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition mirrors a pending Samsung IPR and seeks institution without new arguments.
patent
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
· IPR2024-01376
POSCO has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of ArcelorMittal’s 2021 steel‑coating patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00007
Runergy has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 11 claims of Trina Solar’s 9,722,104 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and argues discretionary denial does not apply.
patent
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2025-00011
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications’ ’651 patent covering CDMA multi‑user detection, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Fuller, Reznik, Frank, and Zha.
patent
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
· IPR2024-01489
Slack and Salesforce petition the PTAB to invalidate Wrinkl’s ’731 patent covering subsidiary‑thread chat interfaces, asserting that the 2017 Cohen publication anticipates all 30 claims. They also argue the patent’s priority date is too late, making Cohen prior art under §§102 and 103.
patent
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00020
New Balance seeks to invalidate Nike’s 2014 footwear patent covering a knitted upper with a thermally bonded skin layer, arguing the claims are obvious in view of prior art such as Becker, Dojan, Wildeman and Farys, and requesting the Board to institute the IPR.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01367
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’384 patent covering fake MAC address techniques. The petition relies on obviousness over Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Yun, Satish and Jalfon. No discretionary denial is requested.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
· IPR2024-01362
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Varia’s RFID‑enabled mobile device patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the claims lack novelty and meet PTAB discretionary standards for institution.
patent
Cargill, Incorporated v.Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLC
· IPR2024-01360
Cargill has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Bunge’s 7,645,473 patent covering vegetable‑fat blends, arguing the claims are obvious over a 1998 Petrauskaite publication and other prior art. The petition details extensive calculations to show the claimed ranges are disclosed or predictable. The Board must decide whether to institute the trial.
patent
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
· IPR2025-00009
Lenovo has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of six claims of Ericsson’s ’654 patent, asserting that prior‑art references Park, Kim, and Panasonic render the claims obvious or anticipated.
patent
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-00005
Solus Advanced Materials petitions an IPR against SK nexilis’s 9,457,541 copper‑foil patent, asserting that claims 1‑4 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition cites Fintiv and Advanced Bionics factors to argue for institution.
patent
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
· IPR2024-01501
Trove Brands has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of CamelBak’s 9,782,028 drink‑container patent, alleging obviousness over Kiyota, Ribarits and Choi references and arguing that the term “user release mechanism” is means‑plus‑function.
patent
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-01481
Lenovo and its allies have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 26 claims of Universal Connectivity Technologies' serial‑communication patent, alleging obviousness over Auld, MPEG‑2, Shin and Hiroshima references.
patent
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
· IPR2024-01492
Decent Espresso International Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of U.S. Patent 10,772,456 covering coffee‑brewing control systems, asserting obviousness over a broad set of prior‑art patents. The petition relies on expert testimony and extensive prior‑art analysis to seek cancellation of the claims.
patent
Intel Corporation et al. v.InterDigital, Inc.
· IPR2024-01441
Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of InterDigital’s ’556 patent covering in‑loop video filtering, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
· IPR2024-01483
Decent Espresso International seeks to invalidate all twelve claims of U.S. Patent 11,576,524 covering espresso‑machine temperature control, arguing they are obvious over the Startz patent and multiple coffee‑machine references. The petition relies on expert testimony and enumerates four §103 grounds.
