US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 57 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent instituted · May 30, 2025
Wise PLC et al. v.--
· IPR2025-01045
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Intercurrency Software’s ’930 patent covering cross‑currency trading platforms, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one of the 15 challenged claims.
patent instituted · May 30, 2025
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
· IPR2025-00960
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR filed by Intel (challenger) against AX Wireless’s ’272 patent covering OFDM header‑repetition techniques, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Hansen, WWiSE, and Choi references.
patent · May 30, 2025
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01009
Micron has requested Director Review of its IPR challenges (IPR2025-01008 and IPR2025-01009) against Palisade Technologies. The patent owner is limited to a 15‑page response within five business days and may not introduce new evidence.
patent denied · May 30, 2025
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01008
Micron’s attempt to overturn a DRAM‑related patent is rebuffed as the PTAB finds its Director Review requests introduce prohibited new evidence and deceptive arguments. Patent Owner urges denial of the requests.
patent · May 30, 2025
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01008
Micron has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent. The petition stresses examiner error, misuse of settled‑expectations doctrine, and critical national‑security implications of Micron’s domestic memory‑chip expansion.
patent · May 30, 2025
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01008
Micron seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Palisade’s DRAM patent, arguing examiner error and national‑security stakes. The petition challenges the Board’s reliance on “settled expectations” based solely on patent age.
patent · May 30, 2025
Wise PLC et al. v.--
· IPR2025-01045
Court decision.
patent denied · May 30, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01080
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving SoundClear’s patent 9,804,819. The denial leaves the original institution decisions, which denied institution, in place.
patent · May 30, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01080
Amazon seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial, arguing that the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule unlawfully limits IPR filings. The petition contends the rule violates the APA, the AIA’s filing deadlines, and due‑process rights.
patent · May 30, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
· IPR2025-01071
Samsung seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR against CM HK’s sensor‑fusion patent. The petition alleges institutional error due to unresolved claim construction, improper reliance on expert testimony, and failure to identify material error in prior‑art translation.
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 have settled their dispute over a PET/CT imaging patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The related district court case was dismissed, leaving no further litigation.
patent · May 30, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01050
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The Board was asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential and separate it from the IPR file.
patent instituted · May 30, 2025
Wise PLC et al. v.--
· IPR2025-01045
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR on Intercurrency Software’s 10,776,863 patent covering a consolidated trading platform, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑12 based on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent denied · May 30, 2025
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01009
Micron’s attempts to obtain director review of a denied IPR are rebuffed. Palisade Technologies argues Micron introduced new, unsupported evidence and made false injunction claims, violating Board rules. The Director is urged to deny all three requests.
patent · May 30, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-01049
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,334,918 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317 and cites Board policy favoring settlement before any merit decision.
patent · May 30, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
· IPR2025-01071
The PTAB Director has sent a Director Review request for Samsung's IPR challenge, requiring a concise, issue‑limited response within five business days and prohibiting new evidence.
patent · May 30, 2025
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC
· IPR2025-00960
Court decision.
patent terminated or settled · May 30, 2025
Wise PLC et al. v.--
· IPR2025-01045
Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,620,701, leading the PTAB to dismiss the case before a trial was instituted. The settlement resolved all claims and the proceeding was terminated.
patent · May 30, 2025
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01008
An email informs Micron and Palisade that a Director Review has been requested for IPR2025-01008 (and 01009). The patent owner may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed, and the Director will decide on the request.
patent · May 30, 2025
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al. v.Longhorn Automotive Group LLC
· IPR2025-01064
Volkswagen has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Longhorn Automotive's 8,265,353 patent covering CT‑PET motion correction. The petition alleges the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Weese, Muehllehner and Wainer. No institution decision has been made yet.
patent · May 30, 2025
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
· IPR2025-01072
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of Evolution Malta’s U.S. Patent No. 11,011,014 covering a roulette‑based wagering system. The petition relies on prior art references Kido, Yee, and Baron to argue anticipation and obviousness, and cites a district‑court finding of invalidity under Alice.
patent · May 30, 2025
Light & Wonder, Inc. et al. v.Evolution Malta Limited
· IPR2025-01073
Light & Wonder has filed an IPR petition challenging Evolution Malta’s ’024 roulette‑payout patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Kido, Yee, and Baron prior art.
patent · May 30, 2025
Micron Technology Inc. et al. v.Palisade Technologies, LLP
· IPR2025-01009
Micron Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Palisade’s U.S. Patent 9,281,314 covering NAND flash memory structures. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references—Kang, Kang‑1, Purayath, and Murata—using Phillips claim‑construction standards. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent · May 30, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
· IPR2025-01071
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of CM HK’s 11,698,687 patent covering a 3‑D pointing device. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Bassompiere prior art and lack written‑description support for quaternion‑based algorithms.
