US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 40 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent terminated or settled
Perfect Corporation v.Zugara, Inc.
· IPR2025-01144
Perfect Corp. and Zugara, Inc. entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on Zugara’s virtual‑try‑on patent, citing statutory authority and efficiency concerns.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-01129
The PTAB held that Samsung's claims 1‑5 and 8‑10 of the ’395 patent were anticipated by Goodnick, rendering them unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims were left intact.
patent
Empower Clinic Services, LLC. (d/b/a Empower Pharmacy) v.Eli Lilly & Co.
· IPR2025-01024
Empower Pharmacy filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s discretionary denial of institution for Lilly’s tirzepatide patent (US 9,474,780). The petition argues that Lilly’s reliance on settled‑expectations and Orange Book listings is misplaced and that the examiner’s error was manifest. The request seeks to have the trial instituted to correct the alleged error and curb high drug prices.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
· IPR2025-01023
Samsung responded to the Patent Owner’s request for Director Review, arguing that the Board correctly found no inconsistency in claim positions, that construction was unnecessary, and that expert testimony was explanatory. The Director’s denial of discretionary review under § 325(d) is upheld.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-01129
The PTAB found all challenged claims of the ’261 patent unpatentable after concluding that prior art Grupp ’483 anticipates the claims and Jammy renders them obvious. Motions to exclude expert testimony were denied.
patent
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
· IPR2025-00970
Yondr, Inc. filed a preliminary response to an IPR petition by Be Smarter, LLC, arguing that the cited prior art (Samuel, Shin, Simpson) does not anticipate or render obvious the ’788 patent claims and requesting denial of institution.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
· IPR2025-01129
The PTAB held that claims 1‑4 and 13 of the ’691 patent are unpatentable for anticipation or obviousness, while the remaining challenged claims survive.
patent
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-01010
Google LLC seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that instituted review of its eight‑year‑old CDN patent (U.S. Pat. 10,057,322). Sandpiper CDN, LLC argues the Board ignored settled‑expectations doctrine and misapplied discretionary‑denial standards.
patent instituted
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
· IPR2025-00960
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR filed by Intel (challenger) against AX Wireless’s ’272 patent covering OFDM header‑repetition techniques, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Hansen, WWiSE, and Choi references.
patent
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01121
Harbor Freight Tools, Champion Power Equipment and other petitioners have reached a settlement in IPR2025-01121. The parties request that the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, and MWE seeks to withdraw from the proceeding.
patent denied
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01021
The PTAB denied Imperative Care’s petition to review Inari Medical’s 11,744,691 patent covering catheter‑based embolism removal. The Board found the petitioner had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of the 31 challenged claims.
patent terminated or settled
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01182
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies settled their IPR disputes before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
patent denied
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01009
The USPTO denied Micron's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs against Palisade Technologies, leaving the institution denials in place.
patent
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01121
Petitioners seek Director review after the USPTO denied institution of a multi‑fuel generator patent, arguing the decision conflicts with a prior institution of the parent ’034 patent. They assert the same obviousness grounds apply and that the denial is arbitrary and capricious.
patent
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01009
Micron has requested Director Review of its IPR challenges (IPR2025-01008 and IPR2025-01009) against Palisade Technologies. The patent owner is limited to a 15‑page response within five business days and may not introduce new evidence.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01044
Wilus Institute asks the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR brought by Samsung, arguing that all challenged patents share the same 802.11ax Wi‑Fi technology and therefore do not meet the “diverse range of subject matter” standard.
patent
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01117
Union Electric seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on a mercury‑control patent. BirchTech’s response argues the Director’s decision is final, the litigation history does not merit reversal, and procedural requests are untimely. The Board is asked to deny the review.
patent
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01117
Union Electric seeks Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial and force an IPR on MES’s mercury‑control patent. The petition argues the patent is invalid in view of extensive prior art and prior Board findings. Settlement activity by the patent owner raises concerns of avoiding a merits decision.
patent denied
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01118
The USPTO Director denied Union Electric’s request for review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,343,114. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes unchanged.
patent denied
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01008
The USPTO denied Micron's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01008, leaving the original denial in place.
patent denied
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01008
Micron’s attempt to overturn a DRAM‑related patent is rebuffed as the PTAB finds its Director Review requests introduce prohibited new evidence and deceptive arguments. Patent Owner urges denial of the requests.
patent
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01171
Infineon contests MOSAID’s late Director Review request, asserting that claim‑construction issues were disclosed before the IPR petition and can be reconciled with district‑court constructions. The petitioner offers stipulations to avoid any inconsistent outcomes.
patent
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01008
Micron has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent. The petition stresses examiner error, misuse of settled‑expectations doctrine, and critical national‑security implications of Micron’s domestic memory‑chip expansion.
patent denied
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
· IPR2025-01026
The USPTO Director denied Geotab’s request for review of the institution decisions in IPR2025‑01026 (and related IPR2025‑01027), leaving the institution of the patents intact.
