US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 54 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent denied
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00821
The USPTO Director denied ClearCorrect's petitions for review of institution decisions in five IPRs involving Align Technology patents, leaving the institution rulings intact.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC
· IPR2025-00836
Cisco seeks rehearing of the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR against QPRIVACY’s privacy‑technology patent, arguing the Director ignored a Sotera stipulation that eliminates duplicate litigation.
patent
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00821
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC seeks a Director Review to vacate the institution of an IPR concerning Align Technology's orthodontic aligner patent. The request hinges on a revised Fintiv analysis, alleged re‑hash of prior art under §325(d), and failure to name all real parties in interest.
patent denied
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00820
The USPTO denied ClearCorrect's request for Director Review of institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Align Technology's orthodontic aligner patent 11,648,090.
patent
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00821
ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s dental aligner patent in a Director Review proceeding, arguing the patent owner’s request raises new RPI arguments and evidence that are barred. The petitioner seeks denial of the review.
patent
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00819
ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s dental aligner patent in an IPR, and Align seeks to deny the Patent Owner’s Director Review request. The response argues the new RPI theory and trial‑date evidence are improper, and that the Board’s institution decision was correct.
patent
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
· IPR2025-00876
The PTAB notified the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876, setting a 15‑page limit and a five‑business‑day deadline for the Patent Owner’s response, with no new evidence allowed.
patent terminated or settled
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-00834
Amphenol challenged Credo’s patents in an ITC investigation involving mobile devices. The parties settled, and the Commission terminated the investigation after the ALJ approved the joint motion.
patent
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00817
Align Technology seeks Director review to vacate the institution of IPR2025-00817 against its intraoral scanner patent. The petitioner’s earlier trial‑date projection is shown to be inaccurate, the cited prior art does not teach the claimed limitation, and the petitioner failed to disclose all foreign real parties in interest.
patent
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00819
ClearCorrect seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR over Align Technology’s orthodontic aligner patent, arguing changed Fintiv factors, improper obvious‑to‑try reasoning, and undisclosed foreign parties.
patent terminated or settled
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-00834
Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four related IPRs, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings before trial. The settlement agreement was ordered confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
patent denied
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00817
The USPTO denied ClearCorrect’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs against Align Technology’s patents, leaving the institution rulings intact.
patent denied
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
· IPR2025-00812
The USPTO denied USAA's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00812, leaving the institution of the auto‑telematics patent intact.
patent
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00818
ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s Director Review request, arguing the new RPI claim and trial‑date evidence are improper and that the Board’s institution decision was correct. The petitioner seeks denial of the Director Review.
patent denied
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-00828
The USPTO Director denied TSMC’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s patent, leaving the institution denial in place.
patent denied
Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc
· IPR2025-00876
The USPTO Director denied Google LLC's request for a director review of the institution decisions in two IPRs (patents 9,940,972 and 10,218,954) filed against Cellular South, Inc.
patent
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-00865
An email notifies the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025-00864 and IPR2025-00865, outlining a 15‑page response limit and a five‑business‑day deadline, with no new evidence allowed.
patent
Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina
· IPR2025-00833
Belden and PPC Broadband seek Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against CommScope’s flexible‑bag patent. They argue the Board mischaracterized an interference search as prior art and ignored material examiner error.
patent
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
· IPR2025-00812
USAA defends the institution of an IPR against Auto Telematics, arguing the patent owner waived procedural arguments and that the ’728 vehicle‑data‑logging patent is obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent denied
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-00832
TSMC’s request for a Director review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial was rejected. The patent owner argues the Director correctly applied the law and that TSMC’s new‑fact and abuse‑of‑discretion theories lack merit.
patent denied
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00807
The PTAB denied Henri Daussi, LLC's motion to withdraw its IPR petition against ECNA, LLC's patent 9,398,791, while allowing the parties to file a joint motion to terminate the proceeding after settling.
patent
Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00807
Henri Daussi, LLC filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its IPR petition after reaching a settlement with patent owner ECNA, LLC. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the parties seek termination of the proceeding.
patent
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-00806
Google argues against the patent owner’s request to revoke institution, emphasizing that the patent’s expiration and a district‑court stay do not justify discretionary denial, and urges the case to proceed.
patent denied
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
· IPR2025-00830
The USPTO Director denied Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company's request for Director Review of the PTAB's institution denial for patent 8,253,180. The denial applies uniformly across five related IPRs.
