US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 29 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Oct 6, 2025
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01119
Belden, PPC Broadband, and Opterna have filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of CommScope’s ’417 fiber‑optic enclosure patent, asserting obviousness over Hogan, Walters, and Abel. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent denied · Oct 6, 2025
United Therapeutics Corporation v.Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01139
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01139, preventing United Therapeutics Corporation from challenging Actelion's patent 8268847.
patent denied · Oct 6, 2025
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01119
The PTAB denied institution for the IPR challenge against CommScope's patent 10996417.
patent denied · Oct 6, 2025
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01119
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01119 involving Belden Inc. et al. and CommScope Technologies LLC, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.
patent denied · Oct 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
· IPR2025-00877
The PTAB denied Google’s request to rehear its challenge to Cellular South’s facial‑recognition patent, finding no abuse of discretion. The Board held that the petitioner failed to raise a proper claim‑construction issue and that its new arguments were untimely and overly broad.
patent · Oct 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
· IPR2025-00875
Google’s request for Director Review of a PTAB denial of institution is challenged by Cellular South, which argues the Board correctly applied the settled‑expectations doctrine and exercised its discretionary authority under § 314(a). The response stresses that the arguments are not new and have been previously rejected.
patent denied · Oct 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
· IPR2025-00875
The USPTO denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00875, keeping the challenge against Cellular South’s patent alive.
patent · Oct 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
· IPR2025-00875
Google LLC has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR against Cellular South’s 9,940,972 patent. The petition argues that the Board’s “settled expectations” rule exceeds statutory authority and violates the APA, AIA, and due process.
patent · Oct 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
· IPR2025-00875
An email notifies parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876. It outlines a 15‑page response limit, a five‑business‑day deadline, and bars new evidence. The patent owner must respond within the stipulated timeframe.
patent · Oct 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
· IPR2025-00877
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Cellular South’s 11,126,853 patent covering video‑to‑data systems, asserting that all eleven claims are obvious under §103. The petition lists four grounds, each tying specific claim groups to prior‑art references.
patent · Oct 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
· IPR2025-00875
Google has filed an IPR petition against Cellular South’s 9,940,972 B2 “Video to Data” patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art references Fontana, Lau, and Arakawa. The petition seeks institution of the review.
patent denied · Oct 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
· IPR2025-00877
The PTAB denied Google's request to institute IPR against Cellular South's patent (11,126,853), finding the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds.
patent · Oct 4, 2025
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
· IPR2025-00837
Cisco has filed a rehearing request after the PTAB director denied institution of its IPR on patent 11,106,824, arguing that a prior Sotera stipulation eliminates concerns of duplicate litigation. The petition cites Federal Circuit case law to support its position.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 4, 2025
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-00835
Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four related IPRs before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 4, 2025
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-00835
Amphenol and Credo have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,233 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential as the proceeding is terminated.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 4, 2025
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-00835
Amphenol and Credo have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317 and argues that no merits decision has been made. The Board is asked to end the proceeding.
patent · Oct 4, 2025
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-00834
Amphenol and Credo have reached a settlement covering the ’252 patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
patent denied · Oct 4, 2025
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
· IPR2025-00837
The USPTO denied Cisco’s request for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial and institution denial in two IPRs involving QPRIVACY USA’s patent 11,106,824. The order upholds the earlier decisions.
patent · Oct 4, 2025
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
· IPR2025-00836
Cisco seeks rehearing of the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR against QPRIVACY’s privacy‑technology patent, arguing the Director ignored a Sotera stipulation that eliminates duplicate litigation.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 4, 2025
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-00834
Amphenol challenged Credo’s patents in an ITC investigation involving mobile devices. The parties settled, and the Commission terminated the investigation after the ALJ approved the joint motion.
patent · Oct 4, 2025
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00817
Align Technology seeks Director review to vacate the institution of IPR2025-00817 against its intraoral scanner patent. The petitioner’s earlier trial‑date projection is shown to be inaccurate, the cited prior art does not teach the claimed limitation, and the petitioner failed to disclose all foreign real parties in interest.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 4, 2025
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-00834
Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four related IPRs, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings before trial. The settlement agreement was ordered confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
patent denied · Oct 4, 2025
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00817
The USPTO denied ClearCorrect’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs against Align Technology’s patents, leaving the institution rulings intact.
patent denied · Oct 4, 2025
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
· IPR2025-00836
The USPTO Director denied Cisco’s petition for rehearing of the decision that refused to institute IPR2025‑00836 against QPRIVACY USA LLC’s patent 11,816,249. The denial leaves the patent unchallenged.
