US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 315 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent instituted · Apr 12, 2024
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 · Apr 11, 2024
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00120
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response to TCL's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,375,341, arguing that the petitioner’s obviousness ground based on the Acharya reference fails to disclose key claim elements and that discretionary factors favor denying institution.
patent · Apr 11, 2024
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00134
Maxell seeks denial of TCL’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,650,780, arguing the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success, fails statutory particularity, and repeats arguments already considered by the USPTO.
patent · Apr 11, 2024
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00141
Skechers petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for Nike’s shoe‑upper patent, arguing the Board misapplied §325(d) to foreign‑language references and ignored prior PTAB findings. The request highlights issues with unintelligible translations and contradictory precedent.
patent · Apr 11, 2024
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
· IPR2025-00136
Aardevo North America petitions the PTAB Director to review the Board’s denial to institute an IPR on Agventure’s hybrid seed potato breeding patent. The petitioner contends the Board ignored printed‑publication anticipations, dismissed secondary‑consideration evidence, and misapplied the nexus requirement.
patent · Apr 11, 2024
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00120
Maxell has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to vacate the institution of IPR2025‑00120, arguing that the Board misapplied the Fintiv factors and ignored the overlap with a parallel district‑court case. The petition emphasizes the imminent trial date and the limited benefit of the petitioner’s Sotera stipulation.
patent denied · Apr 11, 2024
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00135
Maxell, Ltd. filed a sur‑reply urging the PTAB to deny TCL's IPR petition. The owner argues the petition repeats previously presented art, shows no material error, and presents unsupported claim‑construction arguments. The board is asked to reject institution of the review.
patent · Apr 11, 2024
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00134
Maxell’s sur‑reply argues TCL’s IPR petition re‑uses prior art, shows no material error, and fails claim‑construction arguments, urging the PTAB to deny institution.
patent · Apr 11, 2024
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00141
Skechers petitions the PTAB to invalidate Nike's 8,266,749 footwear knitting patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art knitting references. The petition seeks cancellation of 19 claims.
patent all challenged claims upheld · Apr 11, 2024
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00141
Nike's footwear knitting patent survived Skechers' IPR challenge. The Board found no unpatentable claims after rejecting the obviousness arguments based on Reed and Nishida references.
patent · Apr 11, 2024
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00135
Maxell opposes TCL's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,219,020, arguing the prior art does not teach key claim limitations and that discretionary factors favor denying institution.
patent · Apr 11, 2024
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
· IPR2025-00136
Petitioner Aardevo North America filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00136 concerning patent 11140841 owned by Agventure B.V. The Board has invited the patent owner to submit a brief, five‑page response limited to the issues raised.
patent · Apr 11, 2024
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00120
Maxell, Ltd. filed a sur‑reply urging the PTAB to deny TCL Electronics' IPR, arguing the petitioner's single ground is cumulative, lacks material error, and fails claim‑construction analysis. The owner contends the Board should reject institution.
patent denied · Apr 11, 2024
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00141
Nike successfully defended its footwear patent against Skechers’ request for Director Review of a denied IPR institution. The Board affirmed the denial under §325(d), finding Skechers’ arguments unpersuasive.
patent denied · Apr 11, 2024
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
· IPR2025-00136
The PTAB denied Aardevo North America’s request for director review of its petition to institute an IPR against Agventure’s potato‑breeding patent. The Board held that the petitioner’s reliance on physical products violated statutory limits and that it failed to rebut secondary considerations of non‑obviousness.
patent denied · Apr 11, 2024
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
· IPR2025-00136
The PTAB denied Aardevo North America's request for Director Review of the earlier decision denying institution of IPR2025-00136 covering patent 11,140,841. The petition was dismissed without further action.
patent · Apr 11, 2024
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
· IPR2025-00136
Aardevo North America challenges Agventure's 2021 potato hybrid seed patent, asserting that all ten claims are anticipated or obvious based on decades of prior art. The petition lists nine grounds covering anticipation and obviousness over publications dating back to 1971. No secondary considerations are offered.
patent · Apr 11, 2024
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2025-00074
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Proxense’s ’289 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Apr 11, 2024
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00135
TCL has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Maxell’s U.S. Pat. 10,219,020, seeking to invalidate claims covering a display apparatus controlled by a mobile terminal. The petition relies on Bennett and Nashida prior‑art references combined with POSITA knowledge to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Apr 11, 2024
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00142
Skechers has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nike’s ’484 footwear patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art flat‑knitting references. The petition argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
patent · Apr 11, 2024
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00134
TCL Electronics has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Maxell’s U.S. Patent 10,650,780 covering a display apparatus that uses USB and wireless LAN. The petition relies on the Lawther prior‑art reference to argue obviousness of claims 1‑11, 13, and 15‑20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent · Apr 11, 2024
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00141
Skechers has filed an IPR petition challenging Nike’s U.S. Patent 8,266,749 covering knitted textile uppers for footwear, asserting that all 21 claims are anticipated or obvious over prior‑art references Orei, McDonald, Nishida and Guenther.
patent · Apr 11, 2024
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00120
TCL Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Maxell’s 10,375,341 patent covering a multi‑user video display system, asserting that all four claims are obvious over the Acharya prior‑art publication.
patent · Apr 11, 2024
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2025-00075
Court decision.
