US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 310 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent denied
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00037
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Nokia's wireless connection patents against Pegasus Wireless. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, citing significant investment and proximity to a parallel district court trial date.
patent denied
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00035
Micron Technology's IPR challenge against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D memory structures was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Micron failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its obviousness grounds over prior art combinations.
patent instituted
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00034
Micron Technology successfully petitioned to challenge key claims in a semiconductor memory patent held by Yangtze Memory Technologies, leading to institution at the PTAB. The Board focused on obviousness (103) over Nakajima, balancing technical merits with parallel litigation factors.
patent denied
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00034
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for Micron against Yangtze Memory Technologies because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on any remaining claims after several key claims were disclaimed.
patent instituted
Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00032
Tesla Inc. successfully secured institution in this IPR against Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC for battery charging system claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references.
patent denied
Cipla Limited v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
· IPR2025-00033
The PTAB denied Cipla Limited's IPR petition against Gilead Sciences regarding patent 11,744,802, citing the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and lack of compelling merits.
patent instituted
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
· IPR2025-00031
Liberty Energy successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge U.S. Well Services' smart hydraulic fracturing patent, leading to institution for all 19 claims. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments that prior art references like Norris disclose key elements of the system.
patent instituted
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
· IPR2025-00030
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge ParkerVision, Inc.'s '593 patent in an IPR proceeding before the PTAB. The Board instituted the trial on all 20 challenged claims based on obviousness (103), despite arguments regarding constitutional due process and duplication of district court litigation.
patent instituted
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00029
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Tecan Genomics, challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10876108 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that the Examiner erred in relying solely on secondary considerations, adopting the Petitioner's view that combining Shapero and Delseny renders multiple claims obvious.
patent instituted
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00028
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned the PTAB against Tecan Genomics regarding claims related to Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS). The Board instituted review, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
patent instituted
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00027
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Tecan Genomics for patent number 11725241. The Board found sufficient evidence of unpatentability across multiple claims based on grounds of anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
patent instituted
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00026
QIAGEN Sciences successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial proceedings against Tecan Genomics, Inc. regarding a high-throughput sequencing patent (11098357). The Board found reasonable likelihood that claims 1 through 10 are unpatentable under both anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103).
patent instituted
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00021
Google LLC et al. successfully secured institution in the IPR against Mullen Industries' patent '11096039', demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board favorably construed key terms, finding that 'location access rights' encompass group permissions, which supports the Petitioner's case.
patent denied
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00021
The Director denied institution of IPR for Mullen Industries against Google LLC et al., vacating the prior decision. The denial was based on a holistic Fintiv analysis where procedural factors outweighed the merits.
patent denied
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00020
New Balance Athletics, Inc.'s IPR petition against Nike's footwear patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenges over multiple prior art references.
patent denied
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00019
The Director denied institution of an IPR for Mullen Industries against Google LLC et al.'s patent 9204283, vacating the initial Board decision based on Fintiv factors.
patent instituted
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00019
Google LLC et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Mullen Industries LLC's patent on location services, despite initial concerns about discretionary denial. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on strong arguments regarding prior art obviousness and key claim construction terms.
patent instituted
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00018
Google LLC et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Mullen Industries LLC's patent covering location services and tracking. The Board found sufficient evidence of non-obviousness, despite parallel district court litigation, leading to the institution of all 30 claims.
patent denied
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00018
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) involving Google and Mullen Industries. The decision vacated the initial grant of institution based on a holistic review of Fintiv factors.
patent denied
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
· IPR2025-00017
GoPro successfully defended Patent 10,529,052 B2 when the PTAB denied Arashi Vision's IPR petition, citing advanced parallel ITC proceedings and overlapping claims.
patent instituted
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00016
Integrated DNA Technologies successfully challenged the '108 patent's claims in a PTAB institution decision, finding reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation for Claim 1. The Board affirmed that prior art disclosure was sufficient to support the enrichment limitation using Meyer et al.
patent instituted
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00015
Integrated DNA Technologies successfully petitioned IPR against Tecan Genomics' NGS patent (US 10036012), showing a reasonable likelihood that prior art (Meyer) anticipates claims. The Board granted institution, setting the stage for a full trial on all 22 challenged claims.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2025-00011
The PTAB denied Samsung's request to institute an IPR against Collision Communications, citing the Fintiv factors. The Board found that scheduling proximity and significant investment weighed heavily in favor of denying institution despite allegations of obviousness.
patent denied
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
· IPR2025-00013
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum for patent 11770313, citing the advanced scheduling and substantial investment in a parallel district court lawsuit.
