US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 39 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Sep 16, 2025
Hisense USA Corp. et al. v.Light Guide Innovations LLC
· IPR2025-01538
Hisense has filed an IPR petition challenging Light Guide Innovations' 8,267,537 patent covering LED backlight units. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Liu, Roberts, and Liu‑660, and establishes standing to proceed.
patent · Sep 16, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Redstone Logics LLC
· IPR2025-01532
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Redstone Logics’ ’339 patent covering multi‑core processor power management, seeking cancellation of ten claims as obvious over several pre‑AIA references.
patent instituted · Sep 16, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
· IPR2025-01540
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01540 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 15, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01480
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled eight related IPRs before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings on the parties' joint motion.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 15, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01480
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,439,015 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes public policy favoring settlement.
patent · Sep 15, 2025
Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v.Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00084
Cytek Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Beckman Coulter’s 2024 flow‑cytometer patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art WDM designs and lack of written description and enablement for key claim elements such as a “curved mirror” and “semiconductor detector.”
patent · Sep 15, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01480
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Samsung Display’s U.S. Patent 10,439,015 covering OLED TFT display structures. The petition alleges obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references, including Kim‑584, Kim‑923, Moon, Masao and others. No claim constructions are asserted; the claims are to be given their plain meaning.
patent · Sep 15, 2025
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology
· IPR2025-01546
Bio‑Rad petitions IPR to invalidate Caltech’s ’797 patent on multiplex PCR signal encoding, asserting the claims are obvious over Jouvenot and other prior art.
patent · Sep 15, 2025
Luxottica of America Inc. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
· IPR2025-01512
Luxottica has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of e‑Vision’s ’612 smart‑eyewear patent, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier Bluetooth headset and voice‑assistant disclosures such as Howell, Gruber, Jannard‑740, and Osterhout.
patent denied · Sep 15, 2025
Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v.Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00084
The PTAB denied institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR2025-00084) because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that any challenged patent claims were unpatentable.
patent denied · Sep 15, 2025
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology
· IPR2025-01546
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01546 because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims. This decision is based on merits review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
patent instituted · Sep 15, 2025
Luxottica of America Inc. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
· IPR2025-01512
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01512, allowing Luxottica to challenge E-Vision's patent 11971612 on the merits.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 10, 2025
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2026-00007
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,542,571 B2 before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petitions and terminate the proceedings.
patent · Sep 10, 2025
FedEx Corporation et al. v.VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.
· IPR2026-00039
FedEx has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations' 2009 patent on hot deployment in grid computing, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent · Sep 10, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
· IPR2026-00035
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 7,676,194 covering an ultrawideband broadband repeater. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references including Ganz, Larrick, Engels, Perlman and Roese. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent · Sep 10, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC
· IPR2025-01563
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Massively Broadband’s ’548 patent covering steerable antenna technology for radiation safety. The petition relies on prior art such as Schlub, Oshiyama, Prasad, Seol and Yin to argue anticipation and obviousness.
patent · Sep 10, 2025
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
· IPR2025-01420
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing they are obvious over a suite of older apheresis technologies. The petition lists nine statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103, each tied to specific prior‑art references.
patent · Sep 10, 2025
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2026-00007
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Malikie’s ’571 patent covering application control on electronic devices, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Sep 10, 2025
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
· IPR2025-01576
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Perceptive Automata’s ’579 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art neural‑network publications and that many claim limitations are unpatentable printed matter.
patent instituted · Sep 10, 2025
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
· IPR2025-01576
The USPTO Board granted institution for six IPR proceedings, allowing them to proceed to the merits phase. This decision is part of a broader notice covering multiple institutional decisions.
patent · Sep 9, 2025
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-01466
MyPort’s preliminary response argues that Apple’s IPR petition fails to show a media data converter and a single data capture device in the prior art, and therefore should be denied. The petition targets claims 6‑17 of U.S. Patent 10,237,067 covering context‑aware image tagging.
patent · Sep 9, 2025
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-01465
MyPort’s preliminary response argues that Apple’s IPR petition fails to show a single device capturing both location and time data, violating the particularity requirement. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
patent · Sep 9, 2025
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-01464
Apple’s IPR petition to invalidate MyPort’s 9,832,017 image‑tagging patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting that the prior art does not disclose a media data converter performing all claim functions. MyPort urges the Board to deny the petition and refuse to institute review.
patent · Sep 9, 2025
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-01467
Court decision.
