US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 316 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent instituted · Apr 11, 2024
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00141
The PTAB institution of IPR2025-00141, filed by Skechers against Nike, moves forward to challenge the patent's validity on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing after vacating an initial discretionary denial.
patent instituted · Apr 11, 2024
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00142
The PTAB granted institution of Inter Partes Review for Skechers against Nike regarding a footwear patent (9730484). The Board determined that Skechers met the threshold by showing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references like Dua and Hong.
patent · Apr 11, 2024
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00141
The Director granted review and vacated the denial of institution in a Nike patent dispute, remanding the case to the Board. The decision hinged on prior IPR findings showing an apparent material error regarding the Nishida reference.
patent denied · Apr 11, 2024
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00141
The PTAB denied Skechers' petition for IPR against Nike, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error regarding prior art already considered by the Examiner. This decision reinforces the strict application of the Advanced Bionics standard in discretionary denial proceedings.
patent denied · Apr 11, 2024
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
· IPR2025-00136
The PTAB denied Aardevo North America's IPR petition against Agventure B.V., finding the petitioner failed to overcome compelling objective indicia of non-obviousness. The Board rejected arguments based on anticipation and obviousness, particularly concerning potato breeding methods.
patent denied · Apr 11, 2024
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00135
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd.'s attempt to challenge Maxell, Ltd.'s patent via IPR was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that proceeding with the review would be inefficient due to the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and TCL's late filing.
patent denied · Apr 11, 2024
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00134
The PTAB denied TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd.'s request to institute IPR against Maxell, Ltd.'s display apparatus patent. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and the petitioner's relative lateness in filing.
patent denied · Apr 11, 2024
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00120
The Director vacated the institution decision in a dispute involving TCL and Maxell, denying the IPR based on an error in weighing discretionary factors. The denial relates to patent 10375341.
patent instituted · Apr 11, 2024
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00120
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for TCL Electronics against Maxell regarding a video display patent. The Board found that the Petitioner presented a strong challenge based on prior art Acharya, despite parallel district court litigation.
patent denied · Apr 11, 2024
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2025-00074
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR against Proxense because a related review of the same patent had already been instituted in another proceeding.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Apr 11, 2024
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2025-00075
Apple Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Proxense, LLC’s patent claims were obvious over multiple combinations of prior art references (Dua, Giobbi '157, Kotola). The Board found all 20 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent · Apr 10, 2024
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00015
Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response to a USPTO Director Review request, defending the Board’s institution of an IPR on its DNA‑sequencing patent and arguing no abuse of discretion occurred.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 10, 2024
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00007
Trina Solar, Evervolt and petitioners have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,722,104, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided the merits, allowing termination under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent · Apr 10, 2024
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00016
Tecan Group AG petitions the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR filed by Integrated DNA Technologies, arguing the Panel misapplied expert testimony and misread the Meyer prior art. The request also cites policy concerns over multiple overlapping petitions.
patent · Apr 10, 2024
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00015
Tecan Genomics requests Director Review to overturn a PTAB institution decision that granted IDT’s IPR. The patent owner alleges procedural errors, over‑reliance on expert testimony, and policy conflicts, seeking denial of the petition.
patent · Apr 10, 2024
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00016
The PTAB denied Integrated DNA Technologies' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Tecan Group's patents, leaving the institution rulings in place.
patent denied · Apr 10, 2024
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00015
The USPTO Director denied Integrated DNA Technologies' request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00015, leaving Tecan's patent intact.
patent · Apr 10, 2024
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00016
Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response to the PTAB Director’s review request, defending the institution of an IPR against its DNA‑sequencing patents. The petitioner argues the Board acted within policy, relied properly on the Meyer reference, and did not abuse discretion.
patent · Apr 10, 2024
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00015
IDT petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tecan’s 10,036,012 NGS library‑preparation patent, asserting that the Meyer 2009 paper anticipates or makes obvious all challenged claims.
patent · Apr 10, 2024
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00016
IDT has filed an IPR petition challenging Tecan’s ’108 NGS library‑preparation patent, asserting that the Meyer publication anticipates most claims and that the remaining claims are obvious. The petition also argues against discretionary denial.
patent · Apr 10, 2024
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
· IPR2025-00007
Runergy has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 11 claims of Trina Solar’s 9,722,104 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and argues discretionary denial does not apply.
patent · Apr 10, 2024
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-00005
Solus Advanced Materials petitions an IPR against SK nexilis’s 9,457,541 copper‑foil patent, asserting that claims 1‑4 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition cites Fintiv and Advanced Bionics factors to argue for institution.
patent instituted · Apr 10, 2024
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 · Apr 10, 2024
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.
