US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 40 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent terminated or settled · Sep 9, 2025
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01395
Exhibit 2002 is a settlement agreement in IPR2025-01395 between Top Glory Trading Group Inc., DP Dream Pairs, Inc., and Cole Haan LLC concerning U.S. Patent No. 768969. The parties resolved the dispute, terminating the proceeding.
patent · Sep 9, 2025
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-01465
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging MyPort’s ’066 patent, asserting that claims 6‑17 are obvious over prior art references Spatharis, Manjunath, Fuller, and Jain. The petition seeks institution of the review to cancel the challenged claims.
patent · Sep 9, 2025
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-01466
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 6‑17 of MyPort’s ’067 patent, arguing they are obvious over Spatharis/Manjunath and Fuller/Jain. The petition requests institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the challenged claims.
patent · Sep 9, 2025
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-01464
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 6‑17 of MyPort’s ’017 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Spatharis/Manjunath and Fuller/Jain. The petition references a prior IPR that was previously instituted and settled.
patent · Sep 9, 2025
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01395
Top Glory and DP Dream have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Cole Haan’s shoe‑midsole design patent (D768,969), arguing it is anticipated and obvious over several publicly available shoe designs.
patent · Sep 9, 2025
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd v.Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
· IPR2025-01527
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all six claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’909 FinFET patent, asserting obviousness over Lin, Liaw, Chang, and Liu references. The petition argues that each claim element is disclosed in the prior art and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Sep 9, 2025
Apple Inc. v.MyPort Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-01467
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate MyPort’s ’998 patent covering media capture, encryption, and remote storage. The petition relies on Vataja, Cox, and Hershey references to argue obviousness of all 14 claims.
patent instituted · Sep 9, 2025
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01395
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01395, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review based on a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent · Sep 7, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01266
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on patent 11,544,183, arguing that early termination serves public policy and conserves resources.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 7, 2025
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 · Sep 7, 2025
International Business Machines Corporation v.Security First Innovations, LLC
· IPR2025-01202
IBM filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Security First Innovations’ ’456 patent covering all‑or‑nothing encryption and data sharding. The petition relies on obviousness over prior‑art systems by Torre, Desai, Watanabe and Orsini.
patent · Sep 7, 2025
International Business Machines Corporation v.Security First Innovations, LLC
· IPR2025-01200
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Security First Innovations’ U.S. Patent 8,271,802, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and lack of novelty. The petition outlines seven grounds covering the full claim set.
patent · Sep 7, 2025
International Business Machines Corporation v.Security First Innovations, LLC
· IPR2025-01201
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Security First Innovations’ data‑storage patent, asserting obviousness over Dickinson, Hardjono and Moulton references.
patent · Sep 7, 2025
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01031
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 13 claims of BrainGuard’s helmet safety patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition details claim‑by‑claim comparisons to Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Madey, Piper and Halldin references.
patent · Sep 7, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01266
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian's 11,544,183 patent covering flash memory controllers. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks review of 14 claims.
patent · Sep 7, 2025
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01029
Revelyst Sales LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 5‑12 and 17‑20 of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art helmets. The petition relies on §§102 and 103 and detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis of Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Piper, and Halldin references.
patent · Sep 7, 2025
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01033
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed a petition to invalidate BrainGuard's 9,516,909 helmet patent, asserting that its layered, sliding‑helmet claims are anticipated or obvious in view of prior‑art helmets such as Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Madey, and Dotsuko.
patent · Sep 7, 2025
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01032
Revelyst Sales LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 16 claims of BrainGuard Technologies’ helmet patent, alleging obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art helmets that employ sliding layers and chin‑strap configurations.
patent · Sep 7, 2025
REVELYST SALES LLC et al. v.BrainGuard Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01030
Revelyst Sales LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of BrainGuard's helmet patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent · Sep 6, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01110
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of U.S. Patent 11,716,171, which covers a wireless terminal for multi‑user uplink transmission. The petition asserts obviousness over the Kim, Chu, and Choi publications and argues lack of written description support. Samsung seeks institution of the review and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.
patent · Sep 6, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01111
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑18 of Wilus’s Wi‑Fi multi‑user uplink patent, arguing obviousness over Kim, Chu and Choi references and lack of written‑description support. The petition requests institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability.
patent instituted · Sep 6, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01111
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for IPR against Wilus Institute's patent, 10911186, covering multi-user uplink transmission. The PTAB found reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references Kim, Chu, and Choi across all 18 challenged claims. This institution decision sets the stage for a full trial on technical merit.
patent instituted · Sep 6, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01110
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Wilus Institute's patent 11716171, challenging claims 1-16 based on obviousness over Kim and Chu/Choi. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Samsung could prove unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Sep 5, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00989
The PTAB held that Imperative Care’s challenge to Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent succeeded, finding all nine claims unpatentable under §§ 102 and 103 based on prior‑art references Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
