US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 26 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent denied · Oct 14, 2025
Apple Inc. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2025-01571
The PTAB denied Samsung, Google and other petitioners' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00341, leaving the original decision in place.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 14, 2025
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01560
Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,996,838 before the Board decided on institution, arguing that the proceeding was at an early stage and dismissal would conserve resources. The Board is expected to grant the motion, terminating the review.
patent · Oct 14, 2025
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01283
Sandisk and Longitude jointly request the PTAB keep their settlement confidential and move to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 9,929,240.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 14, 2025
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01283
Sandisk and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions settled their IPRs (IPR2025-01281 and IPR2025-01283) before institution. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 14, 2025
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01283
SanDisk and Longitude Flash jointly moved to dismiss an IPR over U.S. Patent 9,929,240 covering NAND flash memory after settling their dispute. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties seek termination under statutory settlement provisions.
patent · Oct 14, 2025
FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
· IPR2026-00060
FedEx has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations' clustered‑computing licensing patent, arguing obviousness over Sparks and Bram references.
patent · Oct 14, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
· IPR2025-01605
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Massively Broadband’s UWB repeater patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent · Oct 14, 2025
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01560
Micron has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Palisade’s 3D NAND patent. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art references—Oh, Oh ’738, and Tokiwa—both singly and in combination. It requests that the Board institute the review and invalidate the claims.
patent · Oct 14, 2025
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
· IPR2026-00020
Google has filed an IPR petition against Sonos’s 11,080,001 patent covering multi-room audio synchronization, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial.
patent · Oct 14, 2025
Apple Inc. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2025-01571
Apple, Amazon.com Services and AWS have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of Headwater Research’s ’571 patent covering secure device provisioning over wireless networks. They argue the claims are obvious over prior‑art systems from Chia, Cunningham and others.
patent · Oct 14, 2025
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01283
Sandisk has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Longitude Flash’s 2018 SONOS memory patent, seeking cancellation of 15 claims on obviousness grounds. The petition relies on Lee ’255, Lee ’961, Fujiwara, and Hwang as prior art.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Oct 13, 2025
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
· PGR2026-00003
In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB held that WHOOP proved 12 of the 23 challenged claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological‑monitoring patent unpatentable, while the remaining claims were left intact.
patent · Oct 13, 2025
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
· PGR2026-00003
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent resulted in the Board finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 13, 2025
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
· PGR2026-00003
The PTAB, on remand, affirmed that all 23 claims of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent are unpatentable. The Board relied on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references and upheld the claim construction of “identify an object.”
patent · Oct 13, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-01310
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing that the prior art does not disclose key claim limitations and that Samsung’s inconsistent claim constructions violate Board rules.
patent · Oct 13, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-01310
Samsung’s IPR petition challenges Maxell’s 12,160,681 patent covering a wireless video transmitter that manages EDID information. The petitioner’s expert argues that the claims are anticipated or obvious in view of Funabiki, Guo, Fastert, and the E‑DDC Standard. No evidence of secondary considerations is presented.
patent · Oct 13, 2025
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
· PGR2026-00003
WHOOP has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of claim 7 of Omni MedSci’s ’790 wearable sensor patent. The petition alleges obviousness over Lisogurski combined with Carlson, Lamego, or Soller, and raises indefiniteness and lack of enablement under § 112. It also invokes collateral estoppel based on prior IPR findings.
patent · Oct 13, 2025
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
· IPR2026-00042
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Netskope’s U.S. Patent 8,543,710, alleging that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Roskind, Gleichauf, and Short prior art and lack proper priority support.
patent · Oct 13, 2025
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
· IPR2025-01590
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sonos’s 2018 ‘715 patent on audio‑synchronization claims, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
patent · Oct 13, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-01310
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Maxell’s U.S. 12,160,681 patent covering a wireless video‑transmitter system. The petition relies on five grounds of anticipation and obviousness using four prior‑art references.
patent instituted · Oct 13, 2025
WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.
· PGR2026-00003
The USPTO Board granted institution for PGR2026-00003 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
patent instituted · Oct 13, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-01310
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01310 involving Samsung and Maxell. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 12, 2025
Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
· PGR2026-00015
Atossa Therapeutics and Jina Pharmaceuticals settled their PTAB post‑grant review before trial, leading to a joint motion that terminated the proceeding. The settlement agreement is to remain confidential per the parties' request.
patent · Oct 12, 2025
Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
· PGR2026-00015
Atossa Therapeutics and Jina Pharmaceuticals have filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the pending post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 12,245,997. The parties cite statutory confidentiality protections and seek to keep the settlement separate from the PTAB file.
