US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 27 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Sep 19, 2025
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01463
Harbor Freight, Generac and MWE have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Champion Power Equipment's 11,840,970 dual‑fuel generator patent. The petition alleges obviousness over numerous prior‑art references and challenges the claim language as means‑plus‑function under §112(f).
patent · Sep 19, 2025
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
· IPR2025-01444
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging Marlin Semiconductor’s U.S. 7,547,584 patent covering dummy openings for charge‑damage reduction in dual‑damascene processing. The petition asserts obviousness over six prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6.
patent instituted · Sep 19, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01562
The USPTO granted institution for several Inter Partes Review proceedings after petitioners demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their challenges. Other cases were denied based on discretionary or merits reviews.
patent · Sep 18, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01482
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Paneltouch Technologies' 8,704,762 display device patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references covering crack‑detection wiring in touch and display panels.
patent · Sep 17, 2025
Alvotech USA Inc. et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
· PGR2025-00085
Alvotech petitions the PTAB to invalidate Regeneron’s ’036 patent covering high‑dose aflibercept eye‑treatment formulations, alleging obviousness and lack of written description. The petition relies on multiple Regeneron disclosures and external prior art. The Board has yet to rule.
patent instituted · Sep 17, 2025
Alvotech USA Inc. et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
· PGR2025-00085
The PTAB granted institution for the PGR proceeding (PGR2025-00085) involving Alvotech and Regeneron regarding patent 12168036. The petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard.
patent · Sep 16, 2025
Hisense USA Corp. et al. v.Light Guide Innovations LLC
· IPR2025-01538
Hisense has filed an IPR petition challenging Light Guide Innovations' 8,267,537 patent covering LED backlight units. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Liu, Roberts, and Liu‑660, and establishes standing to proceed.
patent instituted · Sep 16, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
· IPR2025-01540
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01540 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 15, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01480
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled eight related IPRs before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings on the parties' joint motion.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 15, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01480
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,439,015 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public policy favoring settlement.
patent · Sep 15, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01480
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display’s U.S. Patent 10,439,015 covering OLED TFT display structures. The petition alleges obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references, including Kim‑584, Kim‑923, Moon, Masao and others. No claim constructions are asserted; the claims are to be given their plain meaning.
patent denied · Sep 15, 2025
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology
· IPR2025-01546
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01546 because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims. This decision is based on merits review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
patent instituted · Sep 15, 2025
Luxottica of America Inc. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
· IPR2025-01512
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01512, allowing Luxottica to challenge E-Vision's patent 11971612 on the merits.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 10, 2025
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2026-00007
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,542,571 B2 before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petitions and terminate the proceedings.
patent · Sep 10, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
· IPR2026-00035
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 7,676,194 covering an ultrawideband broadband repeater. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references including Ganz, Larrick, Engels, Perlman and Roese. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent · Sep 10, 2025
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
· IPR2025-01576
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Perceptive Automata’s ’579 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art neural‑network publications and that many claim limitations are unpatentable printed matter.
patent instituted · Sep 10, 2025
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
· IPR2025-01576
The USPTO Board granted institution for six IPR proceedings, allowing them to proceed to the merits phase. This decision is part of a broader notice covering multiple institutional decisions.
patent · Sep 9, 2025
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-01464
Apple’s IPR petition to invalidate MyPort’s 9,832,017 image‑tagging patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting that the prior art does not disclose a media data converter performing all claim functions. MyPort urges the Board to deny the petition and refuse to institute review.
patent · Sep 9, 2025
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-01467
Court decision.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 9, 2025
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01395
Exhibit 2002 is a settlement agreement in IPR2025-01395 between Top Glory Trading Group Inc., DP Dream Pairs, Inc., and Cole Haan LLC concerning U.S. Patent No. 768969. The parties resolved the dispute, terminating the proceeding.
patent · Sep 9, 2025
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-01465
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging MyPort’s ’066 patent, asserting that claims 6‑17 are obvious over prior art references Spatharis, Manjunath, Fuller, and Jain. The petition seeks institution of the review to cancel the challenged claims.
patent · Sep 9, 2025
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-01466
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 6‑17 of MyPort’s ’067 patent, arguing they are obvious over Spatharis/Manjunath and Fuller/Jain. The petition requests institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the challenged claims.
patent · Sep 9, 2025
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-01464
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 6‑17 of MyPort’s ’017 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Spatharis/Manjunath and Fuller/Jain. The petition references a prior IPR that was previously instituted and settled.
patent · Sep 9, 2025
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
· IPR2025-01527
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all six claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’909 FinFET patent, asserting obviousness over Lin, Liaw, Chang, and Liu references. The petition argues that each claim element is disclosed in the prior art and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
