US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 34 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-01402
The PTAB held that most of the claims of Netlist’s ’907 memory‑module patent were obvious over the Ellsberry reference (alone or combined with standards), cancelling 63 of 65 claims. Claims 40 and 41 survived.
patent · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 28 claims of Netlist’s 12,308,087 DRAM‑package patent, asserting lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior‑art memory‑stack technologies.
patent · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-01402
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of Netlist’s 3‑D stacked DRAM patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art memory stack designs and signaling protocols. The petition seeks institution of the trial and cancellation of the claims.
patent · Aug 25, 2025
SK hynix Inc. v.Advanced Memory Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01453
SK hynix has filed a petition for inter partes review challenging U.S. Patent 8,400,835, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior Japanese patents Murakami and Kobayashi, and U.S. patent Yu. The petition seeks to invalidate claims 1, 2, 4, and 5.
patent · Aug 25, 2025
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC
· IPR2025-01398
CrowdStrike has filed a petition for inter partes review of Skysong Innovations’ U.S. Patent 11,275,900, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering machine‑learning‑based cyber‑threat classification.
patent instituted · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· PGR2025-00071
The USPTO Board issued mixed institution decisions across several IPR and PGR proceedings. Some cases were denied based on efficiency or prior rulings, while others proceeded to merits review.
patent denied · Aug 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
· IPR2025-01402
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-01402 because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims. The decision was based on a merits review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
patent · Aug 22, 2025
Porta Sophia v.Ellis, Greg
· IPR2025-01460
Porta Sophia submits an affidavit containing Wayback Machine screenshots of ceramic vape cartridges to show prior art against U.S. Patent 11,235,110. The evidence aims to prove the patent’s claims lack novelty.
patent · Aug 22, 2025
CYBERSECURE IPS, LLC et al. v.Network Integrity Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-01441
CyberSecure IPS petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Network Integrity Systems’ ’641 patent, seeking cancellation of 14 claims as anticipated or obvious over several fiber‑optic monitoring references. The petition relies on §§102 and 103 and an expert declaration.
patent · Aug 22, 2025
Porta Sophia v.Ellis, Greg
· IPR2025-01460
Porta Sophia petitions the PTAB to invalidate U.S. Patent 11,235,110 covering a vaporizer device for psychedelic compounds, asserting that the device, formulations, and isotopomer claims are fully anticipated or obvious by extensive prior‑art references.
patent · Aug 22, 2025
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.First Solar, Inc.
· IPR2025-01432
Canadian Solar petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑8 of First Solar’s 9,130,074 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple pre‑2008 publications describing SIPOS emitters, oxide layers, and antireflective coatings.
patent · Aug 22, 2025
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.CASALE SA
· IPR2025-01454
Topsoe has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑11 and 17‑19 of Casale’s U.S. Patent 11,286,168. The petition argues that the claims are anticipated or obvious over a collection of prior‑art references, especially a 2007 IFA presentation and several earlier patents. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent instituted · Aug 22, 2025
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.CASALE SA
· IPR2025-01454
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR involving Topsoe and CASALE regarding patent 11286168. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
patent denied · Aug 22, 2025
CYBERSECURE IPS, LLC et al. v.Network Integrity Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-01441
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01441 after a merits review. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 21, 2025
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01345
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over Nokia’s 9,036,701 patent. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public policy benefits of settlement.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 21, 2025
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01345
Hisense and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,036,701 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 21, 2025
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01345
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,036,701 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 21, 2025
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01345
Snap and Hisense settled their disputes with Nokia over patents 9,036,701 and 11,805,267. The Board granted joint motions to terminate, ending the IPRs before institution.
patent · Aug 21, 2025
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01345
Snap Inc. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Nokia’s ’701 video‑coding patent, asserting obviousness over Murashita, Marpe, and Yu. The petition targets all 20 claims and seeks their cancellation.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 20, 2025
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01384
MWE Investments and Champion Power Equipment settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 11,905,895 and jointly requested that the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The petition seeks withdrawal from the proceeding and confidentiality for the agreement.
patent · Aug 20, 2025
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01384
MWE Investments, Harbor Freight Tools, and Generac, together with Champion Power Equipment, filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the IPR file. The request cites statutory confidentiality provisions.
patent terminated or settled · Aug 20, 2025
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01384
The PTAB granted settlement motions, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, while keeping the settlement agreements confidential. Generac Power Systems remains as the sole petitioner in the related IPRs.
patent · Aug 20, 2025
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01384
Petitioners seek IPR cancellation of all 21 claims of Champion’s dual‑fuel lockout switch patent, arguing obviousness over DuroMax, Elsdon, Parlatore, Hallberg and a lack of structural support for key claim terms.
patent denied · Aug 20, 2025
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01054
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge brought by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. against Marlin Semiconductor Ltd., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
