US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 25 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Sep 26, 2025
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
· IPR2025-01584
WHOOP petitions to invalidate claim 7 of Omni MedSci’s ’790 wearable sensor patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness under §112.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Sep 26, 2025
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
· IPR2025-01585
The PTAB held that WHOOP proved unpatentability of 12 of the 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological‑measurement patent, while the remaining 11 claims were left intact. The decision hinged on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references covering optical sensing, modulation, and AI‑driven analysis.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Sep 26, 2025
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
· IPR2025-01585
The PTAB held that WHOOP’s challenge succeeded, finding all of the asserted claims of Omni MedSci’s ‘533 patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer prior art.
patent · Sep 26, 2025
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
· IPR2025-01585
WHOOP petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 27 claims of Omni MedSci’s ’304 wearable sensor patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Sep 26, 2025
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
· IPR2025-01583
Apple’s IPR against WHOOP resulted in the Board finding all 23 claims of the wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable under obviousness. The decision affirmed the petitioner’s claim construction and rejected the patent owner’s arguments.
patent · Sep 26, 2025
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2025-01566
Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’301 patent, arguing they are obvious over three prior‑art publications. The petition focuses on the device’s carrier structure and the angled AWG surface.
patent · Sep 26, 2025
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2025-01566
Applied Optoelectronics seeks a discretionary denial of an IPR petition filed by Accelight Technologies over its photonics patent (U.S. 10,042,116). The owner argues the petition repeats issues already litigated and relies on prior‑art already considered by the USPTO.
patent · Sep 26, 2025
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2025-01567
Accelight Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ U.S. Patent 10,042,116, arguing that the AWG‑based optical transceiver concepts were obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Sep 26, 2025
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
· IPR2025-01584
WHOOP, Inc. petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Omni MedSci's wearable sensor patent (U.S. 10,874,304), asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition relies on earlier IPR findings and collateral estoppel to argue the claims lack patentability.
patent · Sep 26, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
· IPR2025-01564
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 33 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’625 patent, which covers steerable‑antenna techniques for reducing user radiation. The challenger argues the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references, including Schlub, Seol, Prasad, and Yin.
patent · Sep 26, 2025
Bonerge Lifescience (Hunan) Co., Ltd. v.Nanjing Nutrabuilding Bio-Tech Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01593
Bonerge Lifescience petitions the PTAB to invalidate five method claims of a diabetes‑treatment patent, asserting obviousness over Turner, Shaw, Zhang and Feng references.
patent · Sep 26, 2025
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
· IPR2025-01583
WHOOP petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 6, 11‑12, 14, and 18 of Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable optical sensor patent, asserting obviousness over Lisogurski combined with Carlson, Walker, or Tam and invoking collateral estoppel from prior IPRs.
patent · Sep 26, 2025
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
· IPR2025-01399
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition challenging all 11 claims of Skysong Innovations’ ’831 patent, which covers energy‑efficient CNN processing. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references and invokes 35 U.S.C. § 103. No institution decision has been made yet.
patent · Sep 26, 2025
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
· IPR2025-01585
WHOOP, Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Omni MedSci’s wearable optical sensor patent (U.S. 11,160,455) on obviousness grounds, citing five prior‑art references and prior IPR findings that the same claim limitations were already deemed unpatentable.
patent instituted · Sep 26, 2025
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2025-01567
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01567 after finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The notice also detailed multiple denials across various proceedings.
patent · Sep 25, 2025
Shuttleslide, LLC v.Sea Swivel Inc.
· PGR2025-00089
Sea Swivel Inc. submits a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny ShuttleSlide’s post‑grant review of its trolling‑motor mount patent, arguing lack of statutory merit, defective prior‑art copies, and unreliable witness testimony.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 25, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01481
BOE and Samsung Display have reached a settlement covering all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 10,013,088 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that termination saves resources and promotes settlement policy.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 25, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01481
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,013,088 before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement confidential. No claim validity determinations were made.
patent · Sep 25, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01481
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display's U.S. Patent 10,013,088 covering an integrated OLED touchscreen. The petition asserts that all 13 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references such as Chen, Jang, Sano, and Sakamoto. BOE seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
patent denied · Sep 25, 2025
Shuttleslide, LLC v.Sea Swivel Inc.
· PGR2025-00089
The USPTO Board denied institution for PGR2025-00089 because the petitioner failed to meet the likelihood of success standard required under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).
patent instituted · Sep 25, 2025
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2025-01570
The USPTO granted institution for several IPR proceedings after petitioners demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their challenges against the patent. This moves these cases forward to the merits phase.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 23, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01545
BOE Technology and Samsung Display have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,626,066 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317 and argues that no merits have been decided.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 23, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01545
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
patent all challenged claims upheld · Sep 23, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01545
The PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR2023‑01075, finding that none of the 24 challenged claims of Samsung Display’s OLED pixel‑arrangement patent (U.S. 11,594,578) were unpatentable. The Board rejected BOE’s obviousness arguments based on Matthies, Yamada, and Hong, concluding no teaching of a "pixel defining layer" existed. All claims remain in force.
