US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 3 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Mar 18, 2026
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC
· IPR2026-00247
Meta Platforms has filed a petition to invalidate Cogmedia’s ’562 patent covering social‑card interfaces, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of earlier patents. The petition challenges 14 claims and seeks institution of the IPR.
patent · Mar 18, 2026
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
· IPR2026-00274
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Sanas.ai’s real‑time accent‑conversion patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition invokes 35 U.S.C. § 103 and follows Phillips claim‑construction standards.
patent · Mar 18, 2026
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
· IPR2026-00298
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Qomplx’s 12,143,424 patent covering distributed stream‑processing graphs. The petition relies on Barsness and two later disclosures (Chakradhar and Siripurapu) to argue obviousness under §103 for nine claims.
patent · Mar 18, 2026
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
· IPR2026-00275
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Sanas.AI’s real‑time accent‑correction patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how each claim element is taught by combinations of Feinauer, Prabhavalkar, Fan and others.
patent · Mar 18, 2026
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC
· IPR2026-00249
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Cogmedia’s ’371 patent, asserting that the claimed card‑based social features were obvious over earlier systems such as McQueen and Forsyth. The petition seeks institution on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Mar 17, 2026
Viance, LLC v.Koppers Performance Chemicals, Inc.
· PGR2026-00023
Viance, LLC has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Koppers' wood preservative patent (US 12,370,716), alleging lack of written description and that the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Mar 17, 2026
VideoAmp Inc. v.The Nielsen Company (US), LLC
· IPR2026-00310
VideoAmp has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Nielsen’s audience‑measurement patent, asserting obviousness over Kerr and related prior art. The petition argues discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks institution of the review.
patent · Mar 16, 2026
Apple Inc. v.TopWire, LLC
· IPR2026-00303
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of TopWire’s ’202 Patent covering a spacer‑connector package‑on‑package structure, alleging obviousness over Chen, Sun, Wu and Furuta references.
patent · Mar 16, 2026
QD Oxford UK Limited et al. v.Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc.
· IPR2026-00291
QD Oxford UK has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑6, 8, and 17‑19 of U.S. Patent 12,313,320 covering dilution refrigerators. The petition relies on six prior‑art references to argue obviousness and anticipation under §§ 102 and 103.
patent · Mar 13, 2026
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
· IPR2026-00288
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of AccuSearch’s ’184 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists eight §103 grounds covering the full claim set.
patent · Mar 13, 2026
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
· IPR2026-00287
Google filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 26 claims of AccuSearch’s search‑result annotation patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition maps each claim group to combinations of Bates, Bhagat, Naick, Brinson, Mehta, Wang and Mills. The Board is asked to institute the review and invalidate the patent.
patent · Mar 13, 2026
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
· IPR2026-00289
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 39 claims of AccuSearch’s ’937 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art search‑engine interfaces. The petition relies on Bates, Bhagat, Brinson, Mehta, Naick, Wang and Mills as teaching references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Mar 12, 2026
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
· IPR2026-00305
Uber and its freight subsidiary have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Carma Technology’s 7,840,427 patent covering shared‑transport routing. The petition relies on the Olmi UK patent application as both anticipatory and obvious prior art for the asserted claims.
patent · Mar 12, 2026
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
· IPR2026-00308
Uber has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Carma Technology’s ridesharing patent (US 11,017,668) on the basis that its claims are obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition lists two grounds covering all 20 claims and requests institution of the review.
patent · Mar 12, 2026
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
· IPR2026-00306
Uber has filed an IPR petition challenging Carma’s ’138 ride‑sharing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over existing transport‑sharing systems disclosed in Olmi, Gaspard, Thomas and Wolfe.
patent · Mar 12, 2026
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
· IPR2026-00309
Uber has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate twelve claims of Carma’s ridesharing patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Olmi, Paul, and Jarvinen. The petition includes detailed claim constructions and a single obviousness ground under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Mar 12, 2026
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
· IPR2026-00307
Uber has filed an IPR petition challenging Carma’s ’456 patent covering shared transport systems. The petition asserts obviousness over O’Sullivan and Olmi references and argues lack of written‑description support. Uber seeks institution of the IPR.
patent · Mar 10, 2026
Microsoft Corporation v.ToutVirtual, Inc.
· IPR2026-00296
Microsoft petitions the PTAB to invalidate ToutVirtual’s virtual‑systems‑management patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a lack of priority for half the claims.
patent · Mar 4, 2026
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
· IPR2026-00326
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 13 claims of Qomplx’s 2025 patent on graph‑based cyber‑attack detection, asserting obviousness over two earlier publications. The petition argues that each claim element is fully disclosed in Brezinski and Crabtree, and no evidence of non‑obviousness is offered.
patent · Mar 4, 2026
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
· IPR2026-00332
Apple has filed an IPR petition targeting claim 55 of IngenioSpec’s ’355 patent covering wearable audio devices. The petition asserts the claim is obvious over prior‑art hearing‑aid patents and a textbook, and asks the Board to institute review and cancel the claim.
patent · Mar 3, 2026
Paragon 28, Inc. v.Treace Medical Concepts, Inc.
· PGR2026-00031
Paragon 28 seeks to invalidate Treace’s 12,349,941 bunion‑correction patent, alleging lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over prior surgical methods and devices. The petition requests cancellation of all 27 claims.
patent · Mar 2, 2026
FanDuel, Inc. et al. v.WinView IP Holdings, LLC
· IPR2026-00245
FanDuel has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate WinView’s ‘349 patent covering synchronized live‑sports gaming, asserting that a 1998 European filing anticipates all challenged claims.
patent · Mar 2, 2026
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.BUNKER HILL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
· IPR2026-00250
Toyota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Bunker Hill’s U.S. Patent 10,549,648 covering hybrid‑electric vehicle propulsion. The challenger alleges anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all 20 claims.
patent · Feb 28, 2026
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.Smart Speaker LLC
· IPR2026-00276
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Smart Speaker’s ’721 smart‑home patent, asserting that all asserted claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
