US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 48 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent denied · Jul 3, 2025
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
· PGR2025-00037
Ascend Elements, Inc.'s petition against Duesenfeld GmbH's battery recycling patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability based on obviousness or indefiniteness across all challenged claims.
patent instituted · Jul 3, 2025
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.Concurrent Ventures, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00478
The PTAB institution decision found that Advanced Micro Devices and Pensando Systems demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The dispute concerns task scheduling and processing element synchronization in computer systems, involving combinations of prior art references like Dongare and Gewirtz.
patent denied · Jul 2, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00540
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving Mobile Data Technologies’ patent 8,793,336. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
patent denied · Jul 2, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00540
Samsung’s request for Director Review of a PTAB discretionary denial was rejected. The Board upheld the denial, emphasizing the patent owner’s strong settled expectations and lack of any material error in examination.
patent denied · Jul 2, 2025
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
· IPR2025-00557
The PTAB denied RØDE Microphones' request for rehearing of its institution denial, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate any Board error regarding the interpretation of Strub’s genlocking technique.
patent · Jul 2, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00539
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a decision denying institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent covering mobile data transmission. The petition alleges abuse of discretion, improper reliance on settled expectations, and procedural violations. A settlement in a related Meta IPR is also highlighted.
patent · Jul 2, 2025
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00475
Maxell seeks a discretionary denial of Coretronic’s IPR petition covering claims 1,3,4,7,9 of its display‑technology patent, arguing that parallel district‑court litigation makes institution inefficient and prejudicial.
patent · Jul 2, 2025
International Business Machines Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00599
IBM has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of VirtaMove’s 2009 container‑technology patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as McMillan and Schaefer. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) is unwarranted.
patent · Jul 2, 2025
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.RightQuestion, LLC
· IPR2025-00361
AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RightQuestion's 2023 patent on automatic number identification. They assert that the claims are obvious over prior art references Har, Miller and French, and argue that the Board should institute the review under favorable Fintiv factors.
patent instituted · Jul 2, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
· IPR2025-00562
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Proxense, LLC was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board found sufficient evidence that Apple demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its unpatentability assertions regarding digital key and biometric security systems.
patent denied · Jul 2, 2025
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
· IPR2025-00557
The PTAB denied institution for the patent owner Zaxcom against Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics regarding wireless audio synchronization claims. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds over prior art references like Strub and Woo.
patent · Jul 1, 2025
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
· PGR2025-00016
Vermeer’s preliminary response to Kubota’s PGR petition argues that the cited Korean patent KR996 fails to disclose the pivotal attachment of linkages and actuators to the mainframe, a core limitation of claims 4‑14. The owner seeks denial of the petition on both anticipation and obviousness grounds.
patent · Jul 1, 2025
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
· IPR2025-00381
Vermeer’s preliminary response contends that Kubota’s petition relies on KR996, which does not disclose the pivotal linkage to the loader support required by the ’891 patent. The owner argues the petition’s modifications are non‑obvious and urges denial of institution.
patent · Jul 1, 2025
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
· PGR2025-00016
Kubota has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 4‑14 of Vermeer’s ’063 patent covering a compact tool carrier. The petition relies on Korean, Japanese, and U.S. prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness, and disputes any discretionary denial.
patent · Jul 1, 2025
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
· IPR2025-00381
Kubota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all ten claims of Vermeer’s ’891 compact tool carrier patent, relying on Korean patent KR996 and secondary references Bares and SAE.
patent instituted · Jul 1, 2025
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
· PGR2025-00016
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned PGR against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent for agricultural machinery, leading to institution on all 11 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness based on prior art references like KR996.
patent instituted · Jul 1, 2025
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
· IPR2025-00381
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent, leading to institution on all 10 challenged claims. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of 'loader support,' finding that prior art supports anticipation and obviousness grounds.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 30, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC
· IPR2025-01223
Amazon and its AWS affiliate filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR against DivX’s 11,611,785 video‑streaming patent. The Board has not yet institutioned the case, and DivX does not oppose the withdrawal. The motion seeks termination of the proceeding for efficiency.
patent · Jun 30, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01164
Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 12,004,262, asserting that its four claims are obvious over several IEEE 802.11 draft and standard documents, as well as the Yang publication. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.
patent · Jun 30, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC
· IPR2025-01222
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of DivX’s 10,412,141 patent covering progressive video playback. The petition asserts that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Hagai, Li, Park, Schmitz) and general POSITA knowledge.
patent · Jun 30, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.DivX, LLC
· IPR2025-01223
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of DivX’s adaptive bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over Ozer, Liao, Gu, and Ronca. The petition requests the Board to institute review under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Jun 30, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01221
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑9 of Advanced Coding Technologies' 2010 voice‑coding patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
patent denied · Jun 30, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01221
The USPTO Board denied institution of multiple IPRs, including the proceeding involving Apple Inc. and Advanced Coding Technologies LLC.
patent instituted · Jun 30, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01164
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01164, allowing Samsung to proceed against Wilus regarding patent 12004262. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
