US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 33 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent instituted
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01264
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s 12,016,580 hemostasis valve patent, finding a reasonable likelihood that Imperative Care will prevail on at least one of the nine challenged claims.
patent instituted
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01264
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success sufficient. All nine claims are now under trial.
patent denied
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01183
Google’s IPR petition challenging nine claims of the ’749 patent was denied. The Board concluded the petition lacked sufficient particularity and did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation or obviousness grounds.
patent terminated or settled
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01266
Samsung and Radian settled the IPRs covering patent 11,544,183 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement documents to remain confidential.
patent all challenged claims upheld
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.
· IPR2025-01157
Google’s IPR against Valtrus’s 6,728,704 B2 patent was decided with all 23 challenged claims upheld. The Board found the prior‑art Bushee not anticipatory and rejected obviousness arguments over Voorhees, Tso, and Koppel.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01254
Apple prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci, finding claims 7 and 10‑14 of the ’299 patent unpatentable for obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer, and Park references.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01183
The PTAB held that claims 19‑23 of the ’592 patent were obvious over Perttila and Insolia and thus unpatentable, while claims 25, 26, 28, 29 remained patentable. The decision reflects a mixed outcome for the parties.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
· IPR2025-01142
Microsoft and Affirmed Networks successfully challenged Lemko’s 7,855,988 patent, with the PTAB finding all asserted claims unpatentable due to anticipation by the Flore publication.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-01129
The Board instituted IPR2020‑01206 on 294 claims of the ’691 patent and held eight claims unpatentable for anticipation by Grupp ’483, while leaving the remaining claims intact.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01182
The PTAB held that claims 19‑23 of the ’592 patent are unpatentable over Perttila and Insolia, while claims 25,26,28,29 remain patentable. The decision reflects a mixed outcome for the challenged patent.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-01129
The PTAB found 11 of the 14 challenged claims of the ’395 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) due to anticipation by Grupp ’483, while claims 11, 12, and 14 survived. Written‑description and enablement challenges were rejected.
patent denied
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01181
Google’s IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based device‑identification patent was denied. The Board found the petition lacked sufficient evidence to show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the asserted claims.
patent all challenged claims upheld
Netskope, Inc. v.K.Mizra LLC
· IPR2025-01115
Cisco, Forescout and HPE challenged K.Mizra’s 2012 network‑quarantine patent. The PTAB found the challengers failed to prove obviousness over prior art and upheld all claims.
patent
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· IPR2025-01104
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 7‑18 of Solmetex’s 11,589,970 patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art dental mouthpiece references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01181
Google’s IPR against a proximity‑based advertising patent resulted in five of the nine challenged claims being found unpatentable, while the remaining four claims were upheld.
patent
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· IPR2025-01104
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, asserting that all claims 12‑21 are obvious over prior art. The petition relies on Park, Baughan, Johnson and Hirsch references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
· IPR2025-01303
Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a response to Dynamic Mesh Networks’ request for director review, stating it takes no position and defers to the Director’s discretion.
patent
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01252
Apple has filed an IPR petition asserting that Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent is wholly obvious over a combination of five prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding that all 23 claims are unpatentable.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01252
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Omni MedSci’s wearable physiological monitoring patent succeeded on 12 of the 23 claims, finding them obvious over prior‑art references such as Lisogurski, Carlson, Tran, Isaacson and Valencell‑093. The remaining claims were not shown unpatentable.
patent
CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01179
CentralSquare (CST) opposes Carbyne’s request for a good‑cause extension to seek Director Review in IPR2025‑01179, asserting the deadline was missed intentionally and no claim‑construction conflict exists. The email urges the Director to deny the contingent request.
patent
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
· IPR2025-01213
The PTAB notified Google and Sonos that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-01213. Sonos may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01253
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s ‘533 patent resulted in all challenged claims being found unpatentable. The Board held that the claims were obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01252
Apple’s wearable physiological‑monitoring patent was declared entirely unpatentable after Samsung’s PTAB challenge, with the Board finding the claims obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering optical sensors, pulse‑rate modulation, spaced emitters, and reflective surfaces.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01252
Apple’s IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health monitoring patent concluded with the Board finding all 23 claims unpatentable for obviousness. The decision affirmed the claim construction of “identify an object” and rejected the need for further briefing.
