US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 246 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-01455
Ericsson and Verizon have petitioned the PTAB to review Procomm’s 8,497,813 panel‑antenna patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the Board should not deny institution.
patent
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
· IPR2024-01444
Aktana has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of Veeva's email‑control patent, arguing obviousness over a set of prior‑art publications and urging the Board to institute the review.
patent
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01442
Deere & Company filed an IPR petition challenging four claims of a dozer‑blade stabilization patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
patent
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
· IPR2024-01358
Digital Global Systems seeks IPR on DeepSig’s 11,018,704 patent, asserting that all 24 claims are obvious over earlier machine‑learning predistortion patents (Jüschke, Holt, Dzierwa). The petition argues that the claimed innovations were well‑known and that the Board should institute the review.
patent
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Procomm International Pte. Ltd.
· IPR2024-01454
Ericsson and Verizon have filed an IPR petition challenging Procomm’s ‘521 patent covering venturi fan‑assisted cooling for telecom equipment, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art patents. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of all challenged claims.
patent
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
· IPR2024-01443
Aktana has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of Veeva's email‑control patent, asserting obviousness over a set of prior‑art publications. The petition argues that discretionary factors strongly favor institution.
patent
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01317
Dyson has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Omachron’s vacuum‑cleaner patent (US 11,910,983). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues discretionary factors favor institution.
patent
Axion Biosystems, Inc. v.Agilent Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01467
Axion Biosystems petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Agilent’s ’508 patent, asserting that prior‑art Xu‑752 and Jones render all 30 claims obvious or anticipated. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire claim set.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01403
Samsung seeks IPR institution to invalidate Harbor Island Dynamic’s 7,772,673 patent covering deep‑trench isolation with chamfered corners, arguing the claims are obvious or anticipated by prior art such as Yin, Koshimizu, and Norström.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-01398
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’042 patent covering hybrid devices with personal digital keys and receiver‑decoder circuits, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
· IPR2024-01379
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 20 of Adaptive Spectrum's ’996 patent, asserting obviousness over Klayman and Agarwal in view of Starr. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability.
patent
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
· IPR2024-01438
Yealink petitions the PTAB to cancel nine claims of Barco’s ’676 patent, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references (Ono, Uchida, Deforche, Grimshaw). The petition argues the examiner failed to consider these references and that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01395
NormShield (Black Kite) has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight's U.S. Patent 11,652,834, asserting that its claims are obvious over the Zhang patent and the McNab book. The petition lists 22 claims and argues that passive DNS enumeration techniques were well‑known before the patent's filing date.
patent
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
· IPR2024-01424
Aputure Imaging Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Rotolight's U.S. Patent 10,197,257, arguing anticipation by Pohlert and obviousness over Mueller and Reichow. The petition argues discretionary denial is unwarranted and requests the Board to institute the trial.
patent
Par-Kan Company, LLC et al. v.Unverferth Mfg. Co., Inc.
· IPR2024-01427
Par‑Kan has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 10‑21 of U.S. Patent 9,745,123, arguing they are obvious over earlier seed‑handling manuals and patents. The petition argues that discretionary‑denial factors do not support a denial and requests institution.
patent
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
· IPR2024-01321
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 13 claims of DH International’s ’333 smart‑card patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art smart‑card references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial of institution.
patent
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
· IPR2024-01428
HP, Dell, and Lenovo have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Universal Connectivity’s packet‑preemption patent, arguing it is anticipated and obvious over earlier Banes and Calvignac disclosures.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01404
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic’s ’609 patent covering through‑silicon‑via structures, arguing that all 18 claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Cooney, Dean, Farooq, and Chen.
patent
Par-Kan Company, LLC et al. v.Unverferth Mfg. Co., Inc.
· IPR2024-01426
Par‑Kan has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 16‑23 of Unverferth’s seed‑carrier patent, arguing obviousness over several prior‑art manuals and patents. The petition also argues that discretionary denial factors weigh against a denial, urging the Board to institute the review.
patent
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
· IPR2024-01420
Home Depot petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑19 of U.S. Patent 11,562,402, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art advertising systems (Grannan, Chung, Yang, Ramaiyer) and that discretionary denial is not justified.
patent
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
· IPR2024-01422
Aputure Imaging Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Rotolight’s U.S. Patent 10,845,044 covering customizable lighting effects, arguing the claims are obvious or anticipated by prior art such as Mueller, Edwards, and Astera.
patent
Quotient Technology, LLC et al. v.Intelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01324
Quotient Technology petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Intelligent Clearing Network’s 9,098,855 coupon‑processing patent, asserting that all 57 claims are anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply, seeking institution of the review.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
· IPR2024-01405
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic’s 9,245,826 patent covering anchor vias for backside metal adhesion, arguing that all 20 claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01392
NormShield (Black Kite) has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight’s ’331 patent covering network‑security risk rating. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Tippett, McNab, and McGovern—to argue obviousness under §103 for claims 1‑29.
