US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 53 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent instituted · Jun 13, 2025
ROBE lighting s.r.o. v.Guangzhou Haoyang Electronic Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-01016
ROBE lighting s.r.o. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Guangzhou Haoyang Electronic Co., Ltd.'s patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness regarding light fixture sealing systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the '373 patent is unpatentable based on prior art reference Jurik.
patent · Jun 11, 2025
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
· IPR2026-00101
Meta Platforms seeks cancellation of all twenty claims of SitNet’s ’454 patent, asserting obviousness over Amidon and the Wong‑Gogic combination. The petition includes a supporting expert declaration and argues discretionary factors favor institution.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jun 11, 2025
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
· IPR2026-00100
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’932 patent covering targeted advertising in situational networks. The PTAB found all ten claims (12‑21) unpatentable as obvious over Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones. The decision clears Meta’s path for its ad‑tech offerings.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jun 11, 2025
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
· IPR2026-00100
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’682 patent covering situational networks. The PTAB found all twenty claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art. The decision finalizes the IPR with a sweeping cancellation.
patent · Jun 11, 2025
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
· IPR2026-00100
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 16 claims of SitNet’s ’345 patent, arguing they are obvious over Gage, Mitchell, Shida, and Sinha. The petition emphasizes strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Jun 11, 2025
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
· IPR2026-00100
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’454 patent, leading the PTAB to find claims 1‑9 and 20 unpatentable and cancel claims 10‑19.
patent · Jun 11, 2025
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
· IPR2026-00101
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of SitNet’s U.S. Patent 12,245,325. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over two prior‑art groupings—Amidon‑Issa and Wong‑Gogic‑Kraft—citing earlier IPR decisions that invalidated a related ’454 patent.
patent · Jun 11, 2025
Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation
· IPR2025-01603
Avidbots has filed an IPR petition against Brain Corporation’s 10,823,576 patent, asserting that all 36 claims are anticipated by earlier SLAM publications and obvious when combined with other robot‑mapping references.
patent denied · Jun 11, 2025
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
· IPR2026-00101
The PTAB denied the institution of IPR2026-00101 against SitNet's patent 12245325. The denial was based on Meta Platforms failing to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent instituted · Jun 11, 2025
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
· IPR2026-00100
The USPTO Director issued a partial Institution Decision for multiple IPRs, granting review in five proceedings while denying it in four others based on the likelihood of prevailing.
patent · Jun 10, 2025
INTELLIGENT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT CORP. v.Cisco Technology, Inc., et al.
· IPR2025-01588
Intelligent Protection Management Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Cisco’s ’293 video‑superposition patent, arguing they are obvious over the Tysso system and a GIMP user manual. The petition cites detailed expert testimony and prior‑art references to support the unpatentability argument.
patent · Jun 10, 2025
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01539
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,668,420, asserting obviousness over multiple hydraulic fracturing references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent denied · Jun 10, 2025
INTELLIGENT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT CORP. v.Cisco Technology, Inc., et al.
· IPR2025-01588
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01588 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent · Jun 8, 2025
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01389
Google petitions an IPR to invalidate 16 claims of Telcom Ventures' 11,937,172 patent covering smartphone NFC financial transactions, asserting obviousness over Barnett, Waters, White, and Smith. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial and seeks institution of the review.
patent · Jun 6, 2025
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
· IPR2025-01027
Geotab petitions the PTAB to invalidate Fractus’s 11,349,200 antenna‑design patent, asserting obviousness over Dou and Jing and lack of written description for 4G‑standard claims.
patent · Jun 6, 2025
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
· IPR2025-01026
Geotab seeks to invalidate all 20 claims of Fractus’s ’677 antenna patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art antennas and lack of written‑description support for 4G LTE features. The petition urges the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
patent · Jun 6, 2025
MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.
· IPR2025-01107
MSN Pharmaceuticals and its affiliate filed a supplemental certificate of service to confirm that the IPR petition and related documents were delivered to Breckenridge Pharmaceutical. The filing complies with USPTO service rules.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 6, 2025
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
· IPR2025-01102
Google and Pointwise Ventures settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent · Jun 6, 2025
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 · Jun 6, 2025
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 · Jun 6, 2025
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
· IPR2025-01102
Google and Pointwise Ventures filed a joint request to terminate their IPR and keep the settlement agreement confidential under Board rules.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 6, 2025
Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC
· IPR2025-01102
Google and Pointwise Ventures have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding at this early stage.
patent · Jun 6, 2025
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01117
An email from the PTAB Director informs the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-01117 and IPR2025-01118, outlining the response requirements and prohibiting new evidence.
patent instituted · Jun 6, 2025
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
· IPR2025-01027
Geotab and Geotab USA have filed an authorized response supporting the PTAB's institution of an IPR against Fractus's patent covering LTE Band 12 antennas. The petition asserts that Baliarda-543 anticipates all claims and that the priority document lacks written description support. The Board is urged to deny the patent owner's request for discretionary denial.
