US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 30 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01323
Union Electric Company requests Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial and force an IPR on MES, Inc.’s ‘225 mercury‑removal patent, arguing the patent is invalid in light of extensive prior art and prior Board findings.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· IPR2025-01204
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to overturn the institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPRs, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent PTAB precedent. The petition seeks vacatur of institution and termination of the proceedings.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· IPR2025-01203
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings filed by Samsung, arguing that Samsung’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions in a parallel district‑court case constitute good cause for reversal.
patent
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01283
Sandisk and Longitude jointly request the PTAB keep their settlement confidential and move to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 9,929,240.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-01314
Maxell opposes Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,180,198, arguing the prior art does not disclose the claimed playlist and dubbing features and that the petitioner’s expert testimony is merely argumentative.
patent terminated or settled
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01193
Microsoft and Dialect settled their IPR dispute over Patent 7,917,367 before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding.
patent
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01183
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' patent covering a server‑mediated exchange of information between wireless devices. The petition relies on Perttila and Swartz as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness of the asserted claims.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01183
Google successfully challenged Target’s proximity‑based coupon patent in IPR2020‑00932. The Board held all nine challenged claims unpatentable, finding them anticipated or obvious over Perttila and the Perttila‑Swartz combination.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-01316
Maxell contests Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,812,646, arguing that the cited prior art does not disclose the three distinct display modes claimed. The patent owner seeks denial of institution, asserting no reasonable likelihood of success for Samsung.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01321
Samsung and Radian have entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01321 under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The motion stresses public‑policy benefits of early settlement and resource conservation.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-01313
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, contending that the prior art never teaches the claimed ‘unlock’ function and that Samsung’s expert testimony is conclusory.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-01315
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art fails to teach key claim elements and the expert declaration offers no new analysis. The Board is urged to reject institution.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-01311
Maxell filed a preliminary sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,812,091. The owner argues the petition misreads the claim’s two‑panel requirement and that the cited prior art was already considered by the USPTO, seeking denial of institution.
patent
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01183
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' patent covering server‑mediated data exchange between wireless devices, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Perttila and Insolia references.
patent denied
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01193
Microsoft’s petition for an inter partes review of several older patents was denied on discretionary grounds. The Board cited the subsidiary’s prior ownership, the patents’ age, and a parallel district‑court case as reasons to avoid duplication of effort.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01183
Google won an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies, finding all 13 challenged claims of the ’736 patent unpatentable for anticipation or obviousness over prior art Eagle (and Eagle + Mgrdechian).
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-01312
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior art does not teach the claimed video‑processing features and the petitioner’s claim constructions are inconsistent and unsupported.
patent
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01183
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of a wireless‑device patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the Eagle prior‑art reference. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
patent
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
· IPR2025-01366
The document is a January 14, 2021 notice of termination of agreement submitted as an exhibit in IPR2025-01366 between Fresh Products, LLC and Sanastar, Inc. The termination suggests the parties may have settled the dispute.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-01310
Samsung’s IPR petition challenges Maxell’s 12,160,681 patent covering a wireless video transmitter that manages EDID information. The petitioner’s expert argues that the claims are anticipated or obvious in view of Funabiki, Guo, Fastert, and the E‑DDC Standard. No evidence of secondary considerations is presented.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-01309
Maxell filed a preliminary sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 7,577,417, arguing that ‘mobile terminal’ means a cellular phone and urging the Board to deny institution.
patent instituted
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-01307
Maxell’s ‘088 patent covering wireless LAN permission management faces an IPR from Samsung. The patent owner argues the prior art is unrelated and the petition fails to prove obviousness, seeking affirmation of all claims.
patent
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01182
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' patent covering dynamic device identifier exchange via a central server. The petition argues the claims are anticipated and obvious over the Mgrdechian and Kulakowski references.
patent
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01182
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of a proximity‑beacon patent owned by Secure Communication Technologies, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior‑art references such as Mgrdechian and its combinations with Kaplan, Kulakowski, Eagle, and Behrens.
