US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 54 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent instituted · Aug 9, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
· IPR2025-01516
The PTAB issued multiple institution decisions, granting IPR for several cases including IPR2025-01516 after finding a reasonable likelihood of success. Other proceedings were denied based on discretionary or non-merits grounds.
patent · Aug 8, 2025
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
· IPR2025-01303
Dynamic Mesh Networks filed a statutory disclaimer for all claims of U.S. Patent 11,368,537, prompting a petition for Director Review to block the institution of Cisco's IPR. The patent owner argues that the disclaimer bars any IPR under 37 C.F.R. §42.107(e).
patent · Aug 8, 2025
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
· IPR2025-01303
Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a response to Dynamic Mesh Networks’ request for director review, stating it takes no position and defers to the Director’s discretion.
patent · Aug 8, 2025
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
· IPR2025-01303
Court decision.
patent · Aug 8, 2025
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01401
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 11 claims of Telcom Ventures' mobile‑payment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
patent · Aug 8, 2025
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
· IPR2025-01303
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Dynamic Mesh Networks' ’537 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art mesh networking references. The petition outlines three grounds covering the full claim set and requests the Board to institute the review.
patent · Aug 8, 2025
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-01220
Marvell has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Credo’s ’111 patent covering high‑speed serial‑link equalization. The challenger relies on a combination of prior‑art references that teach known equalization, preset selection, and training techniques.
patent · Aug 8, 2025
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01082
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of Marlin’s 6,888,181 FinFET triple‑gate patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
patent denied · Aug 8, 2025
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
· IPR2025-01303
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR because the patent owner had filed a statutory disclaimer covering all challenged claims and the entire patent term.
patent instituted · Aug 8, 2025
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
· IPR2025-01303
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01303 involving Cisco Systems and Dynamic Mesh Networks after reviewing the merits. This allows the proceeding to move forward to a full trial.
patent instituted · Aug 8, 2025
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-01220
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01220, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to proceed against Credo Technology Group regarding patent 11032111.
patent instituted · Aug 8, 2025
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01082
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenging patent 6888181, allowing Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited to proceed against Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 7, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01264
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and its combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
patent instituted · Aug 7, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01264
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 12,016,580 covering intravascular embolism treatment devices after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently promising.
patent denied · Aug 7, 2025
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
· IPR2025-01213
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Sonos’s audio patent.
patent · Aug 7, 2025
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
· IPR2025-01213
Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of its IPR petition against Sonos’s audio‑player patent, alleging procedural violations of the APA, improper delegation of authority, and fee‑setting misalignment.
patent instituted · Aug 7, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01264
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s 12,016,580 hemostasis valve patent, finding a reasonable likelihood that Imperative Care will prevail on at least one of the nine challenged claims.
patent instituted · Aug 7, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01264
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success sufficient. All nine claims are now under trial.
patent · Aug 7, 2025
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
· IPR2025-01213
The PTAB notified Google and Sonos that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-01213. Sonos may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
patent · Aug 7, 2025
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
· IPR2025-01213
Sonos filed a response defending the PTAB Director’s denial to institute Google’s IPR over patent 10,541,883, arguing the Director’s discretion is unreviewable and that procedural requirements were met.
patent · Aug 7, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01264
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inari Medical’s 12,016,580 clot‑removal patent. The petition relies on Garrison and several other catheter‑related references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent · Aug 7, 2025
TikTok Inc. and Bytedance Ltd, Bytedance Pte. Ltd., Bytedance Inc., TikTok Ltd., and Heliophilia Pte. Ltd. v.DiStefano Website Innovations, LLC
· IPR2025-01224
TikTok has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 29 claims of DiStefano’s reissued ’971 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Block, Arnold, and Arora. The petition includes a detailed claim construction for “reciprocal site.”
patent · Aug 7, 2025
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
· IPR2025-01213
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sonos’s U.S. Patent No. 10,541,883. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Cheshire, Meenan, and Spurgat under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Aug 7, 2025
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01265
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s FinFET fabrication patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Xu, Lin, and Brask under 35 U.S.C. §103.
