US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 304 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent instituted
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
· IPR2025-00230
Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics successfully petitioned for IPR institution against Zaxcom's audio recording patents, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that the combination of Strub and Woo renders the claimed synchronization methods obvious under § 103.
patent instituted
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00228
Micron Technology successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent 11,101,276 B2. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Micron can prove obviousness over prior art references like Kim and Fang.
patent instituted
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
· IPR2025-00226
Globus Medical successfully navigated the PTAB institution phase against Spinelogik regarding spinal fusion implants. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness over Moskowitz and Steffee for several key claims.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00227
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. The denial upheld prior decisions that had not instituted trials on the challenged patents.
patent instituted
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
· IPR2025-00225
Globus Medical successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Spinelogik's spinal fusion implant patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Blain. This decision advances the dispute into active trial proceedings.
patent instituted
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00223
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against XtreamEdge regarding a PLD patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims. The Board found that the combination of prior art references Seshadri and Biederman provided sufficient grounds for challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent instituted
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00222
Tesla, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Intellectual Ventures II LLC were likely unpatentable based on prior art references Matsushima and Yu/Miyazaki. The Board granted institution, moving the dispute toward trial over key terms like 'integration time' in dynamic range camera technology.
patent instituted
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00221
Tesla challenged Intellectual Ventures II's wireless communication patents under obviousness (103). The PTAB decided to institute the IPR on all eight claims after finding a reasonable likelihood of success.
patent instituted
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00220
Tesla successfully petitioned to challenge Intellectual Ventures II's '670 Patent under Section 103, leading the PTAB to grant institution. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art references Wallen and Berggren regarding LTE/MTC communication systems.
patent denied
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00218
Tesla, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding cellular network resource allocation claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Tesla failed to meet the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
patent instituted
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00219
The PTAB granted institution for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II regarding patent 9706500. The review will examine claims related to transmit power control in wireless networks.
patent instituted
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00217
The PTAB granted institution for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II regarding patent 10952153. The review challenges the obviousness of TPC commands in wireless networks.
patent instituted
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
· IPR2025-00216
The PTAB granted institution for Luxottica against E-Vision's electronic eyewear patent (11487138), finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness grounds using prior art like Thiel and Gruber.
patent denied
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
· IPR2025-00212
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics Corporation's request to institute IPR against Vervain, LLC's patent 8,891,298. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, primarily due to significant overlap with ongoing parallel district court litigation.
patent denied
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.EXELIXIS, INC.
· IPR2025-00210
Azurity Pharmaceuticals failed to convince the PTAB that EXELIXIS's drug formulation patent was unpatentable, resulting in a denial of institution for IPR2025-00210. The Board rejected anticipation arguments based on prior art family relationships and dismissed obviousness claims regarding impurity control.
patent instituted
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2025-00207
Arm Ltd et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC's patent, challenging claims based on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board accepted that a reasonable likelihood of prevailing existed on at least one claim challenge, moving the case into the merits phase.
patent instituted
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2025-00207
The Director granted review and vacated a denial of institution for Arm Ltd against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC, referring the IPR back to the Board after parallel litigation was dismissed.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00197
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Samsung against Mullen Industries. The decision maintains the prior institution decisions across several patents.
patent denied
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00196
The Director denied the institution of an IPR for Midas Green Technologies against Green Revolution Cooling, citing Fintiv factors and concerns over parallel proceedings.
patent instituted
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00196
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Midas Green Technologies, LLC regarding claims covering appliance immersion cooling systems. The Board found that the petitioner met the burden of proof for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art references Best-2008 and Osada.
patent instituted
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
· IPR2025-00195
Garmin International successfully navigated the initial stages of its IPR challenge against Cardiacsense LTD's '998 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several grounds. The Board found that certain claims were not entitled to an earlier effective filing date due to insufficient written description support for a compass feature in prior applications.
patent denied
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00193
The PTAB denied Curio Bioscience's IPR against Prognosys/10X Genomics, finding no grounds for invalidity based on obviousness (Cantor/Armani) or anticipation (Frisen). The Board concluded that the prior art did not teach the necessary combination elements of spatially encoded biological assays.
patent denied
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
· IPR2025-00194
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against DeepSig Inc.'s radio communication patent (11,777,540) filed by Digital Global Systems, citing insufficient evidence that the claims were obvious over prior art.
patent denied
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00192
The PTAB denied Curio Bioscience's IPR challenge against Prognosys and 10X Genomics, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (102), obviousness (103), or written description (112). The Board upheld the validity of the challenged claims in spatial omics/assay systems technology.
