US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 5 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Jan 26, 2026
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.AQ Corporation
· IPR2026-00234
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corp's ’564 smartphone antenna patent, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering dual‑side coil layouts, NFC, MST and wireless charging. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑20 under 35 U.S.C. §311.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jan 23, 2026
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2026-00203
The PTAB held that claims 1‑17, 19, 21‑27, 29 and 30 of Headwater Research’s ’733 patent are unpatentable. Google and Samsung successfully proved obviousness over the MMS 3GPP spec and the Ogawa encryption device.
patent · Jan 23, 2026
Strategy Inc v.Web3AI Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00223
Strategy Inc (formerly MicroStrategy) has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Web3AI's U.S. Patent 9,218,574 covering a user interface for machine‑learning results. The challenger alleges obviousness over a combination of four prior‑art references (Johnson, Lin, Purcell, Mihaylov) under § 103. No institution decision has been made yet.
patent · Jan 23, 2026
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
· IPR2026-00228
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of its vehicle gear‑selection patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.
patent · Jan 20, 2026
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
· IPR2026-00222
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of U.S. Patent 12,338,71, asserting that the vehicle gear‑selection and unparking features are obvious over Joos and its combinations with Bettger, Kischkat, and Hoop. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent instituted · Jan 16, 2026
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2026-00215
Court decision.
patent instituted · Jan 16, 2026
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2026-00215
The PTAB has instituted inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,974,910 clot‑treatment patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple obviousness grounds.
patent instituted · Jan 16, 2026
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2026-00215
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently persuasive. All 36 challenged claims are now under review.
patent instituted · Jan 16, 2026
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2026-00215
Imperative Care seeks to invalidate nine claims of Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 hemostasis valve patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple prior‑art references.
patent instituted · Jan 16, 2026
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2026-00215
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 patent covering intravascular embolism treatment devices after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim. The decision centers on claim constructions of the “filament” element and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent instituted · Jan 16, 2026
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2026-00215
Imperative Care secured an institution of inter partes review against Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent covering claims 1‑9. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness grounds involving Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
patent instituted · Jan 16, 2026
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2026-00215
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims. The dispute centers on the definition of “filament” and reliance on prior art Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller.
patent denied · Jan 16, 2026
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2026-00215
The USPTO denied Imperative Care’s petition for inter partes review of Inari Medical’s ‘580 patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing under § 314(a).
patent · Jan 16, 2026
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2026-00215
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inari Medical’s 12,239,333 patent covering clot‑removal devices. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness of the asserted claims. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent · Jan 16, 2026
DraftKings Inc. et al. v.WinView IP Holdings, LLC
· IPR2026-00175
DraftKings has filed a petition to invalidate multiple claims of WinView’s ’189 fantasy‑sports patent, asserting that the invention is anticipated or obvious over earlier patents. The petition requests cancellation of 16 claims under §§102 and 103.
patent · Jan 16, 2026
DraftKings Inc. et al. v.WinView IP Holdings, LLC
· IPR2026-00175
DraftKings has filed an IPR petition to invalidate 16 claims of a fantasy‑sports patent owned by WinView IP Holdings, asserting that the invention is already disclosed in earlier patents and publications.
patent · Jan 16, 2026
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
· IPR2026-00217
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Moskowitz Family’s spinal fusion patent, asserting that Palmatier anticipates the invention and that combined references render the remaining claims obvious.
patent · Jan 16, 2026
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
· IPR2026-00216
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of the ’284 spinal fusion patent owned by Moskowitz Family. The challenger relies on Palmatier, Gordon and Glerum as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 15, 2026
Plaid Inc. v.Secure Authentication Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2026-00157
Plaid Inc. and Secure Authentication Technologies LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR 2026-00157 after a Utah district court invalidated the patent, citing 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent denied · Jan 15, 2026
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2026-00138
The Director Review denied institution of two IPRs against Headwater Research, finding that discretionary factors—particularly the timing of a parallel proceeding—outweighed the petitioner's merits. Samsung Electronics (as petitioner) and Headwater Research presented opposing arguments on the strength of the petition and the proper weighing of Fintiv factors.
patent denied · Jan 15, 2026
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2026-00137
The PTAB Director Review denied institution of the IPRs against Headwater Research’s patents, finding the parallel proceeding’s trial date too close to the expected final decision.
patent · Jan 15, 2026
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2026-00138
Google has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 9,609,544, seeking cancellation of all 23 claims on the basis that they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references covering network policy and power‑management techniques.
patent · Jan 15, 2026
Plaid Inc. v.Secure Authentication Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2026-00157
Plaid Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,315,090, asserting that its ten claims on automated multi‑factor authentication are anticipated or obvious over earlier patents and public disclosures.
patent · Jan 15, 2026
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2026-00137
Google LLC filed a petition to institute an IPR against Headwater Research’s 9,647,918 patent, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire claim set.
