US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 28 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Sep 9, 2025
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-01467
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MyPort’s ’998 patent covering media capture, encryption, and remote storage. The petition relies on Vataja, Cox, and Hershey references to argue obviousness of all 14 claims.
patent instituted · Sep 9, 2025
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01395
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01395, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent · Sep 7, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01266
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on patent 11,544,183, arguing that early termination serves public policy and conserves resources.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 7, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01266
Samsung and Radian settled the IPRs covering patent 11,544,183 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement documents to remain confidential.
patent · Sep 7, 2025
International Business Machines Corporation v.Security First Innovations, LLC
· IPR2025-01200
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Security First Innovations’ U.S. Patent 8,271,802, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and lack of novelty. The petition outlines seven grounds covering the full claim set.
patent · Sep 7, 2025
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01031
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 13 claims of BrainGuard’s helmet safety patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition details claim‑by‑claim comparisons to Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Madey, Piper and Halldin references.
patent · Sep 7, 2025
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01029
Revelyst Sales LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 5‑12 and 17‑20 of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition relies on §§102 and 103 and detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis of Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Piper, and Halldin references.
patent · Sep 7, 2025
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01033
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed a petition to invalidate BrainGuard's 9,516,909 helmet patent, asserting that its layered, sliding‑helmet claims are anticipated or obvious in view of prior‑art helmets such as Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Madey, and Dotsuko.
patent · Sep 7, 2025
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01032
Revelyst Sales LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 16 claims of BrainGuard Technologies’ helmet patent, alleging obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art helmets that employ sliding layers and chin‑strap configurations.
patent · Sep 7, 2025
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01030
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent · Sep 6, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01110
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of U.S. Patent 11,716,171, which covers a wireless terminal for multi‑user uplink transmission. The petition asserts obviousness over the Kim, Chu, and Choi publications and argues lack of written description support. Samsung seeks institution of the review and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.
patent instituted · Sep 6, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01111
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for IPR against Wilus Institute's patent, 10911186, covering multi-user uplink transmission. The PTAB found reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references Kim, Chu, and Choi across all 18 challenged claims. This institution decision sets the stage for a full trial on technical merit.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Sep 5, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00989
The PTAB held that Imperative Care’s challenge to Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent succeeded, finding all nine claims unpatentable under §§ 102 and 103 based on prior‑art references Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
patent instituted · Sep 5, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00989
The PTAB instituted inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care has shown a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim. The dispute centers on whether the claimed “filament” must be flexible, with the Board presently favoring the patent owner’s interpretation.
patent instituted · Sep 5, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00989
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care likely to prevail on at least one claim. All 15 claims are now under review.
patent instituted · Sep 5, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00989
Imperative Care’s petition to invalidate Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent was granted. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness grounds and instituted review of all nine claims.
patent instituted · Sep 5, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00989
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent (U.S. Patent 11,697,012) on all nine claims after finding the challenger, Imperative Care, showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The dispute centers on claim construction of “filament” and alleged anticipation/obviousness over prior‑art references.
patent · Sep 5, 2025
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00986
Mercedes-Benz and patent owner The Phelan Group filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory confidentiality provisions.
patent · Sep 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-00969
Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute inter partes review of its expired content‑delivery patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and misread the prior art. The request seeks reversal of the institution.
patent denied · Sep 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-00969
The PTAB denied Google and Sandpiper CDN's requests for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs, including the 8,478,903 patent. The denial leaves the original institution rulings in place.
patent instituted · Sep 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-00969
Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Sandpiper CDN’s expired ’903 patent covering CDN alias routing. The petition argues that expiration and a district‑court stay do not create settled expectations for discretionary denial and that the prior art Kenner teaches the claimed elements.
patent · Sep 5, 2025
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
· IPR2025-00959
The patent owner has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00959, and the Board has instructed the petitioner to submit a limited response within five business days.
patent instituted · Sep 5, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00989
The USPTO granted institution of IPR2025-01562 filed by Imperative Care against Inari Medical's patent 11865291. The Board found the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, allowing the case to move forward.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Sep 5, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00989
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable. The Board’s claim construction of “filament” as a flexible element undermined the anticipation argument and found the obviousness combinations persuasive.
