US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 28 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Oct 10, 2025
Generac Power Systems, Inc. v.PSLC LLC
· IPR2026-00023
Generac Power Systems has filed an IPR petition challenging PSLC’s ’857 patent covering backup power source load control, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier microgrid technologies such as Lasseter and Lopes.
patent · Oct 10, 2025
Generac Power Systems, Inc. v.PSLC LLC
· IPR2026-00022
Generac Power Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 27 claims of U.S. Patent 11,967,857 covering backup‑power load control. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of four prior‑art references and defines key terms to support its position.
patent · Oct 10, 2025
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
· IPR2026-00008
Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Dynamic Mesh Networks' 8,520,691 patent covering a structured wireless mesh network. The petition alleges obviousness over five prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute a trial and cancel the claims.
patent instituted · Oct 10, 2025
Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v.Ziklag IP LLC
· IPR2026-00047
The PTAB granted institution for Amazon Web Services' IPR against Ziklag IP regarding patent 6182128, allowing the review to proceed.
patent instituted · Oct 10, 2025
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
· IPR2025-01577
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01577 involving Tesla and Perceptive Automata LLC. The Board found that the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
patent · Oct 9, 2025
SHENZHEN QIANFENYI INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.Wacom Co. Ltd.
· IPR2025-01533
Shenzhen Qianfenyi petitions an IPR against Wacom's 9,977,519 active‑pen patent, asserting that all challenged claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. Four grounds are presented covering §§102 and 103. The petition seeks institution of the review.
patent · Oct 9, 2025
Hisense USA Corp. et al. v.Light Guide Innovations LLC
· IPR2025-01526
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 22 claims of Light Guide Innovations' U.S. Patent 8,408,778 covering LED backlighting technology. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of prior art references such as Asada, Kinoshita, Ashdown, Cho and Dejima. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent denied · Oct 7, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· IPR2025-01270
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review to overturn the institution of Samsung’s Wi‑Fi patent, finding no good cause for a deadline extension and insufficient explanation of differing claim constructions.
patent instituted · Oct 7, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· IPR2025-01270
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven IPRs and PGRs against Samsung, arguing that Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions in district court and before the PTAB violate recent Revvo precedent.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 7, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01245
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies have settled IPR2025-01245. The parties filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and separate from the public docket.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 7, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01245
BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,250,758. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR proceeding, citing the settlement and judicial economy.
patent · Oct 7, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01246
Court decision.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 7, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01246
BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,803,836. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the three inter partes review proceedings and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 7, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01246
BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies have settled IPR2025-01246. The parties filed a joint motion to seal the settlement agreement as business confidential information.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 7, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01245
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies settled their dispute over three patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the related IPRs. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
patent · Oct 7, 2025
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
· PGR2025-00060
TankLogix has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of SitePro’s ‘184 patent covering remote control of fluid‑handling equipment, arguing abstract‑idea ineligibility, obviousness over four prior references, and lack of written‑description support.
patent · Oct 7, 2025
Meta Platform Inc. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
· IPR2025-01248
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sterling Computers' ’217 patent covering email relevance scoring. The petition relies on five obviousness grounds using Dumais, Kircher, Krug, and Marston references. No secondary considerations are asserted.
patent · Oct 7, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01245
BOE Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all nine claims of Paneltouch's 2016 touch‑panel display patent, arguing obviousness over the Nakamura and Hinata ’741 publications.
patent · Oct 7, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· IPR2025-01270
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging XiFi Networks’ U.S. Patent 12,114,177, asserting that all 26 claims are obvious over earlier multi‑RAT systems disclosed in Chincholi and Clegg. The petition seeks institution of the review under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent · Oct 7, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01246
BOE Technology files an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of Paneltouch's touch‑panel display patent, asserting obviousness over the Nakamura publication and, for claim 2, over Nakamura combined with Slobodin.
patent instituted · Oct 7, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· IPR2025-01270
Samsung successfully secured institution for its IPR against XiFi Networks' patent 12114177. The trial is currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.
patent instituted · Oct 7, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01246
The USPTO Board issued mixed institution decisions across multiple IPR and PGR proceedings, granting trials in some cases while denying them in others based on likelihood of prevailing.
patent instituted · Oct 7, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01245
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01245, allowing the trial to proceed on merits.
patent · Oct 6, 2025
United Therapeutics Corporation v.Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01139
United Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 57 claims of Actelion’s ’847 patent covering macitentan‑PDE5 inhibitor combinations for pulmonary hypertension. The petition alleges anticipation by Bolli and obviousness over Bolli‑Keyser and Hoeper‑Morice references, arguing that secondary considerations are irrelevant.
