US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 293 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent instituted
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00988
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Wilus Institute of Standards, challenging 14 claims related to LTE/5G signal processing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that key claims are unpatentable based on prior art references like Josiam and Kim.
patent denied
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
· IPR2025-00987
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by American Airlines and Southwest Airlines against Intellectual Ventures I LLC, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Lawson, Tsutsumitake, and Choquier in the dynamic routing network space.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00988
The PTAB denied institution for Samsung's IPR against Wilus, citing the petitioner's failure to justify inconsistent claim construction arguments made in district court and before the Board.
patent instituted
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-00969
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR against Sandpiper CDN's patent 8478903, asserting that the core technology was obvious over prior art like Kenner.
patent denied
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
· IPR2025-00959
The Director denied the institution of IPR2025-00959, vacating a prior decision because Carbyne failed to explain inconsistencies in its claim construction arguments between district court and PTAB.
patent instituted
Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.
· IPR2025-00956
Straumann USA, LLC successfully petitioned against Smart Denture Conversions, LLC's patent, leading to institution of IPR proceedings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
patent instituted
Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.
· IPR2025-00959
Carbyne successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Tritech Software Systems regarding emergency SMS/geolocation technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) over various combinations of prior art references, including Brooks and SARLOC.
patent denied
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-00951
The Director denied institution of IPRs against Champion Power Equipment because Generac Power Systems presented inconsistent arguments regarding the claim terms 'desired pressure' and 'selector switch' in parallel litigation.
patent instituted
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-00951
Generac Power Systems successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Champion Power Equipment, Inc., regarding a dual-fuel generator control system. The Board found sufficient showing of obviousness and anticipation across multiple grounds using prior art references like DuroMax and De Vries.
patent instituted
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00949
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS successfully convinced the PTAB that multiple claims of Helsinn Healthcare's anti-emetic patent were unpatentable. The Board granted institution based on obviousness (103) over several prior art references, paving the way for a full trial.
patent instituted
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00948
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Helsinn Healthcare's '515 patent covering anti-emetic agents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness (103) and prior art, allowing the challenge to proceed.
patent instituted
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00947
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Helsinn Healthcare S.A.'s patent covering anti-emetic agents for oncology treatment. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that numerous claims would be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art references.
patent instituted
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00945
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Helsinn Healthcare S.A.'s anti-emetic patent (8623826). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on independent claim 19, allowing the challenge based on obviousness over prior art like MASCC and Hoffmann.
patent instituted
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v.Helsinn Healthcare S.A.
· IPR2025-00946
AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. successfully secured institution of its IPR against Helsinn Healthcare S.A.'s patent (9186357) for anti-emetic agents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that several claims would be unpatentable over prior art, specifically regarding the combination of triple-drug CINV treatment and superior NK antagonists.
patent denied
Coretronic Corporation et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-00941
The Director denied institution of the IPR against Maxell's patent 7159988, citing settled expectations and potential duplication with a parallel district court case.
patent instituted
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00936
Samsung successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Wilus Institute, challenging 16 wireless communication claims based on obviousness over prior art references like Lee.
patent instituted
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00934
Samsung challenged Wilus's wireless patent claims based on obviousness in view of prior art standards and publications. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable, specifically citing combinations of Bharadwaj and Sun. This sets up a significant trial over HE WLAN technology.
patent instituted
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00935
Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus Institute's patent 11,129,163 by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on prior art (Lee). The trial will proceed on all 16 challenged claims.
patent denied
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2025-00931
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to convince the PTAB that Intellectual Ventures' claims regarding distributed OS image management were unpatentable. The Board denied institution, finding the petitioner did not meet the reasonable likelihood standard against combinations of prior art references.
patent instituted
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00933
Samsung Electronics challenged 12 claims of Wilus Institute's wireless communication patent (11470595) based on obviousness. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding reasonable likelihood that Samsung will prevail regarding unpatentability.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00933
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR against Wilus Institute, citing the petitioner's failure to justify inconsistent claim construction arguments made in district court versus before the Board.
patent instituted
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00930
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Phelan Group, LLC's driver monitoring patent (11472427), arguing the technology is anticipated and obvious in light of prior art.
patent instituted
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00919
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Phelan Group's driver safety patent (10,259,465), challenging all 20 claims based on obviousness and anticipation using the 'Murphy' prior art.
patent instituted
Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-00916
Intel Corporation et al. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.'s patent (11811582). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art including Menon and Trefethen in the field of cluster computing.
