US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 42 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Jul 21, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01229
A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPRs have unusually high numbers of prior‑art citations and often rely on new references introduced during the post‑grant proceeding. Expert testimony and novel evidence play a key role in the Board’s unpatentability findings.
patent denied · Jul 21, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01193
Microsoft’s petition for an inter partes review of several older patents was denied on discretionary grounds. The Board cited the subsidiary’s prior ownership, the patents’ age, and a parallel district‑court case as reasons to avoid duplication of effort.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 21, 2025
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 · Jul 21, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01193
Microsoft and Dialect jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking trade‑secret protections under the CFR. The request seeks to limit public disclosure and to be notified of any access requests.
patent · Jul 21, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· PGR2025-00067
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Patent 12,190,198 covering multi‑transceiver Wi‑Fi 7 bandwidth allocation. The petition asserts obviousness, patent‑ineligible abstract idea, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The PTAB has yet to act on the petition.
patent · Jul 21, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01193
Microsoft has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Dialect’s ’367 patent covering natural‑language speech processing. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over Belfiore, Kennewick, and Ross prior‑art references and seeks institution of the IPR.
patent · Jul 21, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01229
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 6 of Dialect’s ‘409 patent on dynamic speech sharpening. The challenger relies on the Bazzi paper and the Sabourin and Epstein patents to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
patent instituted · Jul 21, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· PGR2025-00069
The Board granted institution for the PGR proceeding involving Samsung and XiFi Networks, allowing the challenge to proceed based on likelihood of prevailing or unpatentability.
patent · Jul 19, 2025
Jesco Lighting Group, LLC v.AGS Lighting Management, LLC
· IPR2025-01328
Jesco Lighting Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of AGS Lighting Management’s linear LED lighting patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details four grounds, each pairing Edwards, Sadwick, Jeswani, and May to show the claimed features were well‑known.
patent instituted · Jul 19, 2025
Jesco Lighting Group, LLC v.AGS Lighting Management, LLC
· IPR2025-01328
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01328 after finding the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The proceeding is currently stayed pending review in another case.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 18, 2025
LiveIntent, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
· IPR2025-01317
LiveIntent successfully challenged Intent IQ’s 7,861,260 patent covering targeted TV ads. The PTAB found all 152 claims unpatentable, deeming them obvious over a combination of prior‑art hotspot and set‑top‑box technologies. The decision also adopted a specific claim construction for “contracted to display a TV ad.”
patent · Jul 18, 2025
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
· IPR2025-01325
Capital One filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-01325 and asked to submit Exhibit 1057. The patent owner consents to the exhibit but opposes the Director Review itself.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
· IPR2025-01325
Capital One seeks PTAB Director Review of its IPR against Wapp Tech, with a brief response window for the patent owner.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01322
Union Electric seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent. The patent owner argues the denial is final, the litigation history does not warrant reversal, and the petitioner’s procedural requests are untimely. The Board is urged to uphold the denial.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
· IPR2025-01325
Capital One challenges the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for patent 8,924,192, asserting statutory violations and procedural defects. The petition highlights failure to consider required briefing, lack of a three‑member panel, and missing APA compliance. It seeks vacatur of the decision and a proper institution ruling.
patent denied · Jul 18, 2025
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01322
The USPTO Director denied Union Electric's request for review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the challenge to patent 10,668,430. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01322
Union Electric filed Director Review requests for IPR2025-01322, -01323, and -01324. The PTAB Director instructed MES, Inc. to respond within five business days, limited to 15 pages and no new evidence.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
LiveIntent, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
· IPR2025-01317
LiveIntent petitions to invalidate 42 claims of Intent IQ’s ’398 patent, asserting that the invention is obvious in view of prior‑art profiling systems (Eldering, Banga) and IPv6 standards. The petition relies on expert testimony and RFC publications to support a §103 obviousness argument.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
· IPR2025-01242
3D Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Intrepid Automation’s ’511 patent covering DLP‑based additive manufacturing. The petition relies on five grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art references Shkolnik, Sekine, Greene, Jørgensen and Yi. The Board is asked to institute the review and not deny the petition discretionary.
patent instituted · Jul 18, 2025
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.--
· IPR2025-01327
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Reolink Innovation against ThroughTek Co. Ltd., challenging 19 claims of patent 9727655 based on obviousness over prior art combinations like Schwan and Lee.
patent instituted · Jul 18, 2025
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
· IPR2025-01242
The USPTO granted institution for five IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01042, IPR2025-01241, IPR2025-01264, IPR2025-01153, and IPR2025-01242) after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent · Jul 17, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-01308
Maxell defends its ’650 Patent on personalized content delivery, arguing that Samsung’s cited prior art (Shindo, Sasaki, Futa, McClellan) does not teach the claimed one‑to‑one content‑to‑device mapping. The response also challenges the petitioner's expert credibility and claim construction.
patent · Jul 17, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-01308
Maxell’s preliminary response argues Samsung’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art (Shindo, Sasaki, Futa, McClellan) does not disclose the patented association‑information features. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 17, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01321
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,709,772 B1 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, ending the proceeding.
