US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 56 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Jun 2, 2025
International Business Machines Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00591
IBM has filed a petition for inter partes review of VirtaMove’s U.S. Patent 7,784,058, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art relating to shared libraries and OS kernel functions. The petition details two grounds of obviousness and argues against discretionary denial.
patent · Jun 2, 2025
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
· IPR2025-00581
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ImberaTek’s ’201 patent on embedding components in a baseboard, asserting that the claim is anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should not deny institution and that all Fintiv factors favor proceeding.
patent instituted · Jun 2, 2025
GD Energy Products, LLC v.Kerr Machine Company
· PGR2025-00031
GD Energy Products successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Kerr Machine Company's pump patent, alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found it more likely than not that at least one claim would be unpatentable over various prior art references related to fluid end assemblies.
patent denied · Jun 2, 2025
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00585
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-00585, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any asserted claims were unpatentable. The denial hinged on ambiguity in claim language and lack of teaching in the prior art regarding material property calculations.
patent instituted · Jun 2, 2025
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00438
The PTAB instituted an IPR trial, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the petitioner, Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., against Stratasys, Inc. The grounds centered on 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 regarding data tag-based automation in 3D printing.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 1, 2025
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00413
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00413 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 9,045,101. The Board had previously instituted the review, but the parties seek early termination to conserve resources.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 1, 2025
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00413
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,045,101, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
patent · Jun 1, 2025
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00413
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential while seeking to terminate the IPR over patent 9,045,101.
patent · Jun 1, 2025
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2025-00243
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information, separate from the patent file.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 1, 2025
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2025-00243
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,769,316, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR before the Board decided any merits.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 1, 2025
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2025-00243
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 8,769,316. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
patent · Jun 1, 2025
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· PGR2025-00021
Micron has filed a post‑grant review petition against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘838 patent, asserting that 15 claims are obvious over prior art such as Kim and Lee. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the challenged claims.
patent · Jun 1, 2025
Ultrahuman Healthcare PVT. LTD et al. v.Ouraring Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00411
Ultrahuman Healthcare has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of Oura's finger‑worn health‑monitoring ring, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking §325(d) to avoid denial.
patent · Jun 1, 2025
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00413
Mercedes‑Benz has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 9,045,101, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over existing driver‑authentication and vehicle‑monitoring technologies. The petition cites multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary factors favor institution.
patent · Jun 1, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC
· IPR2025-00335
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging four claims of Sinotechnix’s ’952 patent covering LCD backlight panels. The challenger asserts obviousness over the Hong and Lee publications, and over its own admitted prior art, and seeks institution of the review.
patent · Jun 1, 2025
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2025-00243
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8‑17 of U.S. Patent 8,769,316, asserting obviousness over Felter, Finkelstein, and Therien references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and urges the Board to institute the review.
patent instituted · Jun 1, 2025
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· PGR2025-00021
Micron Technology successfully instituted PGR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding a patent on 3D memory structures. The Board found that the petitioner sufficiently demonstrated obviousness over prior art references Kim and Lee for multiple claims. This moves the dispute into trial phase, raising significant stakes in semiconductor technology licensing.
patent instituted · Jun 1, 2025
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00413
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully petitioned to challenge Phelan Group's patent (9045101) in the PTAB, leading to institution of all 20 claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds against multiple prior art references.
patent · May 30, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01080
Amazon challenged the denial of institution of SoundClear’s noise‑reduction patent, arguing the PTAB’s “settled expectations” standard violated the APA and due process. SoundClear’s response contends the Deputy Director acted within statutory authority and that Amazon had proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
patent terminated or settled · May 30, 2025
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
· IPR2025-01064
Volkswagen and Longhorn Automotive settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement is kept confidential per statutory provisions.
patent terminated or settled · May 30, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01050
Samsung Electronics and Secure Communication Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential. The proceeding was terminated with no merits decided.
patent terminated or settled · May 30, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01050
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01050 after reaching a license agreement that settles all disputes over the ’344 patent. The Board has not yet instituted the review, making termination appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
patent terminated or settled · May 30, 2025
Wise PLC et al. v.--
· IPR2025-01045
Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC entered a settlement that grants Wise a royalty‑free license to several patents, includes a covenant not to sue, and results in the dismissal of both the related lawsuit and the IPR proceeding.
patent instituted · May 30, 2025
Wise PLC et al. v.--
· IPR2025-01045
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Intercurrency Software’s 10,062,107 patent covering a consolidated multi‑currency trading platform after Wise PLC showed a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds.
