US PTAB IP Litigation
2,587 annotated decisions
Page 4 of 108 · 2,587 total
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light, Inc.'s challenge against Joovv, Inc.'s light therapy patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish unpatentability under § 103 using references Dijkstra and Norwood.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge key claims of the '638 patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The PTAB granted institution, allowing Google to proceed with a substantive review against the patent owner's camera system technology.
Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC
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.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 19 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board adopted the Petitioner's interpretation of 'virtual detent,' defining it as vibrotactile feedback that simulates mechanical resistance, and found anticipation in Rosenberg I for all claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01187, allowing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. to proceed against Hannibal IP LLC's patent 11057896.
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR proceedings against Patent No. 9,330,593 B2 in the OLED circuitry space. The Board found sufficient showing for institution based on Petitioner's analysis of Tobita as prior art under §102(b).
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01153, allowing ASUSTeK to challenge Nokia's patent 10536714 after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
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.
GUANGZHOU EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01369 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Atrius Development Group Corp. v.ABC IP, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR2025-01473 for Atrius Development Group Corp. against ABC IP, LLC because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
The USPTO Director denied the institution of IPR proceedings brought by Amazon against VB Assets regarding patent 11080758.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO denied institution of IPR petitions filed by ASUSTeK against Nokia, preventing the trial on patentability issues.
ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE v.Texas Instruments Incorporated
ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE's IPR challenge against Texas Instruments Incorporated was denied by the PTAB, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that ELMOS lacked adequate motivation and particularity in its obviousness arguments across multiple grounds.
Amazon.com, Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
The USPTO Director denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition filed by Amazon.com against VB Assets' patent 11087385.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01171, allowing Infineon to challenge MOSAID's patent 7051306.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. This decision affirms the prior denial of institution, meaning trial will not proceed on these patents.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Danco's patent, challenging 20 claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'integrally molded with,' defining it as being formed as a single structure.
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, meaning no trials will proceed in these cases.
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Infineon against MOSAID regarding patent 9,972,381 B1, setting the stage for trial.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
The PTAB denied MediaTek's IPR challenge against MOSAID regarding power management technology. Despite a dissenting judge arguing for reasonable likelihood based on Nowka and Borkar, the Board found Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient motivation or intrinsic support for its obviousness theories.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied the petition challenging patent 9003315, finding that petitioners failed to demonstrate obviousness against the claims. The Board sided with the Patent Owner (LiTL LLC), concluding that prior art combinations did not teach the specific content filtering required by the patent.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla Inc.'s IPR against iQar Inc. was instituted by the PTAB, allowing claims related to vehicle power management logic to proceed to trial. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), particularly regarding the combination of prior art references.
North Sails Group, LLC v.Team New Zealand Limited et al.
The PTAB denied institution of the post-grant review (PGR) for patent 12110089, finding that North Sails Group failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenged claims.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft and others failed to prove obviousness against LiTL LLC's display adaptation patent (9003315) before the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioners could not demonstrate sufficient particularity regarding content filtering, denying the unpatentability challenges.