US PTAB IP Litigation

8,722 annotated decisions

8,722
Decisions
1
IP Types
0
Courts
Browse by type: patent 8,722

Page 6 of 364 · 8,722 total

patent · Jan 26, 2026

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.AQ Corporation

· IPR2026-00231

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corporation’s ’011 patent covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6 on obviousness grounds, citing three prior‑art combinations. No claim construction or Board decision is included in this filing.

patent · Jan 26, 2026

Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC

· IPR2026-00200

Beatbot Technology petitions the PTAB to cancel all five claims of Zodiac Pool Systems' autonomous pool‑cleaner patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and lack of written description for key limitations.

patent · Jan 26, 2026

Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC

· IPR2026-00202

Beatbot Technology petitions the PTAB to invalidate Zodiac Pool Systems' pool‑cleaner patent, arguing that claims 1‑3 are obvious over a combination of existing underwater cleaning robots and lack written‑description support for key controller features.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jan 23, 2026

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00203

The PTAB held that claims 1‑17, 19, 21‑27, 29 and 30 of Headwater Research’s ’733 patent are unpatentable. Google and Samsung successfully proved obviousness over the MMS 3GPP spec and the Ogawa encryption device.

patent · Jan 23, 2026

Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC

· IPR2026-00229

Tesla files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of a vehicle gear‑selection patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patent · Jan 23, 2026

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00203

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Headwater's 9,232,403 patent covering a secure MMS-enabled mobile device, arguing obviousness over TS‑23.140, Ogawa, and other references.

patent · Jan 23, 2026

Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC

· IPR2026-00227

Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of U.S. Patent 11,932,230, which covers vehicle gear‑selection control. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.

patent · Jan 23, 2026

Strategy Inc v.Web3AI Technologies, LLC

· IPR2026-00223

Strategy Inc (formerly MicroStrategy) has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Web3AI's U.S. Patent 9,218,574 covering a user interface for machine‑learning results. The challenger alleges obviousness over a combination of four prior‑art references (Johnson, Lin, Purcell, Mihaylov) under § 103. No institution decision has been made yet.

patent · Jan 23, 2026

Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC

· IPR2026-00228

Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of its vehicle gear‑selection patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.

patent · Jan 20, 2026

Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC

· IPR2026-00222

Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of U.S. Patent 12,338,71, asserting that the vehicle gear‑selection and unparking features are obvious over Joos and its combinations with Bettger, Kischkat, and Hoop. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.

patent · Jan 20, 2026

Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC

· IPR2026-00205

Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of the ’457 vehicle‑gear‑selection patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition cites expert testimony and seeks a finding of unpatentability under § 103.

patent · Jan 20, 2026

Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC

· IPR2026-00204

Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 24 claims of the ’184 vehicle gear‑selection patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists thirteen grounds covering combinations of Joos with Kischkat, Hoop, Allexi, Bettger, and Bayer.

patent · Jan 20, 2026

Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC

· IPR2026-00219

Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging the vehicle gear‑selection control patent owned by Bulletproof Property Management, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists six §103 grounds covering all 20 claims. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.

patent instituted · Jan 16, 2026

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2026-00215

Court decision.

patent instituted · Jan 16, 2026

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2026-00215

The PTAB has instituted inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,974,910 clot‑treatment patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple obviousness grounds.

patent instituted · Jan 16, 2026

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2026-00215

The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently persuasive. All 36 challenged claims are now under review.

patent instituted · Jan 16, 2026

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2026-00215

Imperative Care seeks to invalidate nine claims of Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 hemostasis valve patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple prior‑art references.

patent instituted · Jan 16, 2026

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2026-00215

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 patent covering intravascular embolism treatment devices after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim. The decision centers on claim constructions of the “filament” element and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patent instituted · Jan 16, 2026

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2026-00215

Imperative Care secured an institution of inter partes review against Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent covering claims 1‑9. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness grounds involving Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.

patent instituted · Jan 16, 2026

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2026-00215

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims. The dispute centers on the definition of “filament” and reliance on prior art Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller.

patent denied · Jan 16, 2026

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2026-00215

The USPTO denied Imperative Care’s petition for inter partes review of Inari Medical’s ‘580 patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing under § 314(a).

patent · Jan 16, 2026

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v.Biofrontera Inc.

· PGR2026-00021

Sun Pharmaceutical has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Biofrontera’s nanoemulsion patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Uhlmann and Palazzolo prior‑art references.

patent · Jan 16, 2026

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2026-00215

Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inari Medical’s 12,239,333 patent covering clot‑removal devices. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness of the asserted claims. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.

patent · Jan 16, 2026

DraftKings Inc. et al. v.WinView IP Holdings, LLC

· IPR2026-00175

DraftKings has filed a petition to invalidate multiple claims of WinView’s ’189 fantasy‑sports patent, asserting that the invention is anticipated or obvious over earlier patents. The petition requests cancellation of 16 claims under §§102 and 103.

1 •••567•••364