US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 278 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent denied · Jun 12, 2024
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
· IPR2025-00182
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute IPR against Entropic Communications regarding a wideband receiver patent. The denial was based on the existence of another parallel petition covering the same claims.
patent denied · Jun 12, 2024
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
· IPR2025-00181
The PTAB denied Comcast's second IPR petition against Entropic's wideband receiver patent (11785275), citing the existence of a first, already-instituted parallel proceeding.
patent instituted · Jun 12, 2024
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
· IPR2025-00180
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-00180, allowing Comcast to challenge Entropic's wideband receiver patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on the petitioner's arguments against anticipation and obviousness.
patent instituted · Jun 12, 2024
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
· IPR2025-00160
The PTAB granted institution for ResMed Corp.'s IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board overcame arguments regarding parallel District Court litigation by applying the Fintiv factors.
patent instituted · Jun 12, 2024
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
· IPR2025-00159
ResMed Corp. successfully petitioned for institution of its IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.'s patent covering CPAP systems. The Board declined discretionary denial, finding that the petitioner adequately demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both 102 and 103 grounds.
patent instituted · Jun 12, 2024
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
· IPR2025-00158
ResMed Corp. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.'s patent (No. 11690512). The Board found that ResMed demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Ground 1, allowing the challenge to proceed despite neutral merits.
patent · Jun 11, 2024
Nuvei Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Autoscribe Corporation
· IPR2025-00089
Nuvei Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Autoscribe’s ’621 patent covering online payment tokenization. The challenger asserts the claims are obvious over prior art references Stringfellow, Kloster, and Carlson.
patent · Jun 11, 2024
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00144
Skechers has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Nike’s 9,918,511 footwear patent, arguing they are obvious over decades‑old knitting references. The petition also notes that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
patent · Jun 11, 2024
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00143
Skechers has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nike’s 9,986,781 patent covering knitted footwear uppers. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary factors do not support denial of institution.
patent denied · Jun 11, 2024
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00144
Skechers' IPR challenge against Nike regarding knit textile footwear was denied by the PTAB. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds, despite adopting the patent owner's claim construction for 'article of footwear.'
patent denied · Jun 11, 2024
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00143
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Skechers against Nike, finding the claims lacked reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness grounds (103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow construction of 'article of footwear,' which was critical to the denial.
patent denied · Jun 11, 2024
Nuvei Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Autoscribe Corporation
· IPR2025-00089
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Nuvei Technologies against Autoscribe Corporation's payment processing patents. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds, specifically regarding negative limitations in tokenization claims.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01407
Headwater Research filed a response defending the PTAB’s denial of Samsung’s IPR institution. The brief argues the Vidal Memo recission was proper, the change‑in‑position doctrine does not apply, and discretionary denial under § 314(a) is statutorily authorized.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01392
NormShield (Black Kite) and BitSight have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on BitSight’s ’331 patent. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the parties argue termination promotes efficiency and reduces costs.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 9, 2024
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01395
NormShield and BitSight have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01395 based on a settlement agreement, citing early-stage efficiency and lack of an institution decision.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 9, 2024
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2024-01392
NormShield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate four inter partes review proceedings before institution. The Board granted the joint motion and ordered the settlement to remain confidential.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01407
Samsung filed an authorized response opposing Headwater’s request for Director Review of the Board’s institution of IPR2024‑01407. Samsung contends the institution was proper, based on prior‑art disclosures and a correct Fintiv analysis, and that Headwater’s alleged prejudice is unfounded.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
· IPR2024-01376
ArcelorMittal seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR covering claims 1‑30 of its high‑strength aluminum alloy‑coated steel patent. The owner contends the Board abused its discretion by misapplying Fintiv factors, particularly Factor One and Factor Four, in violation of §314(a).
patent · Jun 9, 2024
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
· IPR2024-01377
POSCO has filed an authorized response seeking Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal’s steel patent. The petitioner argues the Board’s reliance on Fintiv precedent and lack of overlap with parallel ITC proceedings makes institution improper.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
· IPR2024-01377
ArcelorMittal seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering claims 1‑25 of its high‑strength steel patent, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and should have denied institution.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ARCELORMITTAL
· IPR2024-01376
ArcelorMittal has filed Director Review requests for two IPRs, and POSCO has five days to submit a limited response without new evidence.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology Co., Ltd. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
· IPR2024-01406
Shenzhen Kangvape Technology opposes RAI Strategic Holdings' Director Review request, arguing that RAI introduced a new Fintiv argument after institution, contrary to USPTO guidance, and that the Board already addressed all raised issues.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01407
Samsung has filed a rehearing request challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its 9,179,359 patent, arguing that the agency’s retroactive policy change and the new “Fintiv” framework violate due process and statutory limits.
patent · Jun 9, 2024
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01407
Headwater Research asks the PTAB Director to terminate Samsung's IPR after arguing the Board relied on a non‑petitioner theory and misapplied discretionary denial factors. The request targets the institution of claim 26 of U.S. Patent 9,179,359.
