US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 35 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent terminated or settled
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01229
Microsoft and Dialect reached a settlement that led both parties to jointly move to terminate the inter partes review of patent 7,634,409 before the Board made an institution decision.
patent
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· IPR2025-01059
Dr. Brian P. Black, the inventor of a prior dental isolation mouthpiece, filed a declaration supporting Ascentcare’s IPR petition against Solmetex’s 11,589,969 patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01021
In an IPR, the PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable under §§102 and 103, finding the petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness arguments persuasive.
patent
Generac Power Systems, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01228
Generac and co‑petitioners filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the patent file, limiting disclosure under 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
patent
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· IPR2025-01057
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to review U.S. Patent 11,589,969, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier dental mouthpiece patents. The petition outlines five statutory grounds under §§102(b) and 103, targeting claims 1‑4 and 6‑19 for cancellation.
patent denied
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01278
The USPTO Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the challenge to patent 9,042,448 owned by Advanced Coding Technologies.
patent
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01118
BirchTech (MES, Inc.) opposes Union Electric’s request for Director Review of a denied institution of an IPR covering a mercury‑control patent. The response argues the Director’s decision is final, the patent’s litigation history does not merit reversal, and procedural requests for joinder and stay are untimely.
patent
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01118
Union Electric seeks Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial of its IPR petition challenging MES’s mercury‑control patent, arguing the patent is invalid on multiple grounds.
patent terminated or settled
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-01302
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,884,373. The Board terminated the proceeding by grant of a joint motion, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
patent terminated or settled
Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC
· IPR2025-01215
Apple and Vampire Labs reached a settlement, prompting a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,358,103. The Board granted the termination without addressing the merits.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-01052
The PTAB held that Samsung’s IPR against OAK IP’s 9,905,691 patent succeeded on five claims – claims 1‑4 and 13 were found unpatentable – while the remaining claims survived.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-01211
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 27 claims of a dual‑damascene interconnect patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists detailed grounds for each claim group and requests the Board to institute the review.
patent
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
· IPR2025-01213
Sonos filed a response defending the PTAB Director’s denial to institute Google’s IPR over patent 10,541,883, arguing the Director’s discretion is unreviewable and that procedural requirements were met.
patent terminated or settled
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
· IPR2025-01187
Samsung and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01187 concerning U.S. Patent 11,057,896. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-01210
TSMC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 27 claims of a semiconductor interconnect patent, asserting that dummy‑via and dual‑damascene technologies were already disclosed in multiple prior‑art references. The petition targets claims covering dummy structures, dimensions, and interconnect layouts.
patent denied
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01117
The USPTO Director denied Union Electric’s request for review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,596,517. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.
patent instituted
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01114
Snap’s IPR petition challenging Nokia’s video‑compression patent was instituted, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 23 claims based on MPEG‑1 and H.263 prior art.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· IPR2025-01208
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPRs, arguing that Samsung’s contradictory claim constructions in the district court breach Revvo precedent and invalidate the petitions.
patent
Netskope, Inc. v.K.Mizra LLC
· IPR2025-01115
An exhibit submitted by Netskope shows K.Mizra's extensive litigation history, listing dozens of active and terminated district‑court cases. The document is used to underscore a pattern of settlements in the IPR challenge of patent 8234705.
patent terminated or settled
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01114
Snap and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,175,148 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, which the Board granted, also ordering the settlement documents to be treated as confidential.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· IPR2025-01206
XiFi Networks requests an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPRs and PGRs, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent Revvo precedent.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· IPR2025-01204
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks' request to overturn the institution of multiple IPRs against Samsung, finding no good cause for a deadline extension and requiring justification for differing claim constructions.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
· IPR2025-01188
Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01188, citing their settlement agreement and requesting it be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The Board is asked to end the proceeding and seal the settlement details.
patent
MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.
· IPR2025-01107
MSN Pharmaceuticals and its affiliate filed a supplemental certificate of service to confirm that the IPR petition and related documents were delivered to Breckenridge Pharmaceutical. The filing complies with USPTO service rules.
