US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 249 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01366
Samsung petitions an IPR to invalidate 17 claims of Secure Wi‑Fi’s 9,717,005 Wi‑Fi connection patent, asserting obviousness over Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Orava and Yun.
patent
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
· IPR2024-01294
Garmin has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1, 12, and 25‑26 of Saris’s ’394 bicycle‑trainer patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Zwinkels and obvious over Zwinkels alone or combined with Papadopoulos. The petition requests institution of the review and cancellation of the challenged claims.
patent
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01300
Harman International Industries petitions the PTAB to invalidate U.S. Patent 11,589,329 covering an acoustic‑device system. The petition relies on five prior‑art references and asserts §§102/103 unpatentability for all eleven claims.
patent
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
· IPR2024-01345
Amazon and affiliates petition PTAB to invalidate NL Giken’s ’968 patent, alleging all 12 claims are obvious over prior art such as Lee and Hunt. The petition also argues discretionary denial is not warranted.
patent
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
· IPR2024-01340
TikTok has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 8,145,704, asserting that prior art references Whitehead, Cristofalo and Marcus ’904 make all 24 claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2024-01283
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of Croga Innovations’ ’601 patent covering sandboxed computing environments, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
patent
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-01346
BMW of North America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Foras Technologies’ fault‑tolerant multiprocessor patent. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of six prior‑art references and challenges the examiner’s earlier rejections. It also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
· IPR2024-01339
TikTok has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of NTECH's video‑recommendation patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over earlier systems such as Marcus156 and Harbick.
patent
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
· IPR2024-01373
Nikon and co‑petitioners seek to invalidate Optimum Imaging’s ’805 patent covering in‑camera image filtration, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art such as Niikawa, Enomoto, Levien, and Yamasaki. The petition requests institution of an IPR and disputes any discretionary denial.
patent
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
· IPR2024-01293
Bitsgap and co‑owners have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Intercurrency Software’s 2018 patent covering cross‑border currency conversion in trading platforms, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art systems.
patent
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
· IPR2024-01338
TikTok has filed an IPR petition challenging NTECH’s U.S. Pat. 8,875,185, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art video‑programming references. The petition seeks institution and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-01281
Cisco Systems filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Lionra Technologies' U.S. Patent 7,738,471 covering high‑speed packet processing. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple pre‑AIA references and argues that discretionary denial is improper.
patent
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
· IPR2024-01347
BMW has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Foras Technologies’ fault‑tolerant multiprocessor patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over Fox, Safford, Arai and related references.
patent
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
· IPR2024-01304
UiPath has filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of the ‘977 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a wide range of prior‑art references covering query generation, term expansion, and data‑source monitoring. The petition also argues that the claim terms are limited to human‑generated queries and a relevance‑based accuracy threshold.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
· IPR2024-01368
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’552 patent covering Wi‑Fi connection methods. The petition argues that claims 1‑9 are obvious over Vardi, the IEEE 802.11 standard, Orava and Yun, and opposes any discretionary denial.
patent
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
· IPR2024-01352
Adobe has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate six claims of Jaffe’s ’828 patent covering image‑authentication methods. The petition relies on obviousness over prior‑art camera and hashing patents, Exif metadata standards, and a data‑stream authentication patent.
patent
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
· IPR2024-01306
UiPath petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Rule 14’s ’712 data‑mining patent, arguing lack of written‑description support and obviousness over a broad set of prior art covering collection selection and non‑textual data queries.
patent
Google LLC v.--
· IPR2024-01319
Google has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Proxense’s ’289 patent covering hybrid devices with secure memory and proximity authentication, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
· IPR2024-01349
Samsung seeks an IPR to invalidate 13 claims of a media‑measurement patent owned by Anonymous Media Research Holdings, arguing obviousness over Steuer and Neumeier references and lack of written‑description support for video‑data features.
patent
Alamar Biosciences, Inc. v.Olink Proteomics AB et al.
· IPR2024-01353
Alamar Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Olink's 7,883,848 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art combinations such as Kanan/Neri and Baez/Landegren. The petitioner asserts the examiner omitted critical references and that no discretionary factors justify denial.
patent
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
· IPR2024-01322
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of DH International’s ’294 patent covering multimode cellular phone data switching, arguing that Mooney and Lee disclose the same features and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
· IPR2024-01278
Bitsgap Holding and co‑petitioners seek to invalidate all 12 claims of Intercurrency Software’s cross‑border trading patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art systems and requesting joinder with a related IPR.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-01334
Apple has filed an IPR petition against Proxense's 8,886,954 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Ludtke and Kon. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the challenged claims.
patent
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2024-01333
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Proxense’s ’730 biometric authentication patent on obviousness grounds, relying on the Ludtke and Kon references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.
