US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 60 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent instituted · Jul 24, 2025
Apple Inc v.1LSS Inc.
· IPR2025-01180
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01180, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
patent instituted · Jul 23, 2025
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01338
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 7,724,818 B2 video‑coding patent after Amazon demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on eight claims. The Board rejected discretionary denial arguments and will proceed to trial on all challenged claims.
patent · Jul 23, 2025
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01338
Snap Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nokia's 7,724,818 video‑codec patent. The petition asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial. Institution of the review is requested.
patent · Jul 23, 2025
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
· IPR2025-01339
Fresh Products sent a formal notice terminating its manufacturing agreement with Sanastar’s WizKid Products, citing the contract’s 90‑day termination clause. The exhibit was filed in IPR2025‑01339 as supporting evidence.
patent · Jul 23, 2025
SNAP INC. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01338
Snap Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s U.S. Patent 7,724,818, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over prior‑art video‑coding references Au, VCEG‑N52 and Sriram.
patent · Jul 23, 2025
Snap Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01263
Snap Inc. and Hisense have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Nokia’s ’714 video‑compression patent, asserting that earlier coding methods render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Jul 23, 2025
FRESH PRODUCTS, LLC v.SANASTAR INC.
· IPR2025-01339
Fresh Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Sanastar’s urinal anti‑splash patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier splash‑prevention devices such as Fushimi, Brown, Valadez, and Wise.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 22, 2025
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01185
The PTAB granted settlement motions filed by Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and MWE Investments, LLC, terminating the IPRs against them while the case continues for Generac Power Systems, Inc.
patent · Jul 22, 2025
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01185
MWE Investments, Harbor Freight Tools, and Generac have filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement for Patent 10,221,780 confidential and separate from the patent file. The request cites statutory confidentiality provisions and seeks limited disclosure only upon proper request.
patent · Jul 22, 2025
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01185
MWE Investments, Harbor Freight and Generac have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Champion Power Equipment’s dual‑fuel lockout switch patent, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references and that key claim terms lack proper structure.
patent denied · Jul 22, 2025
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01185
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01185 after a merits review, finding the petitioner could not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger notice covering multiple institutional decisions.
patent denied · Jul 21, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· PGR2025-00069
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review to overturn the institution of XiFi Networks’ patent, finding no good cause for extending the deadline and noting inconsistent claim‑construction positions.
patent denied · Jul 21, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· PGR2025-00068
The PTAB denied XiFi Networks' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs brought by Samsung, finding no good cause for extending the deadline and requiring consistent claim construction positions.
patent · Jul 21, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· PGR2025-00069
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the institution of eleven Samsung‑filed IPR and PGR petitions, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate recent PTAB precedent. The request asks the Director to terminate the proceedings.
patent · Jul 21, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· PGR2025-00068
XiFi Networks seeks an out‑of‑time Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR and PGR challenges, arguing that Samsung’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions in district court undermine their invalidity arguments.
patent denied · Jul 21, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· PGR2025-00067
The USPTO denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review, leaving Samsung’s institution of multiple Wi‑Fi patents intact.
patent · Jul 21, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· PGR2025-00067
XiFi Networks seeks Director Review to overturn eleven IPRs and three PGRs against Samsung, arguing Samsung’s contradictory claim‑construction positions violate PTAB policy and merit vacating institution.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 21, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01193
Google (as petitioner) successfully challenged claim 12 of Dialect’s ’160 patent, which covers speech‑recognition handling of natural‑language utterances. The Board held the claim obvious over the Kennewick and Ross references and rendered it unpatentable.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 21, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01229
Microsoft and Dialect settled the IPR concerning patent 7,634,409 before the Board could institute a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted and the settlement agreement was kept confidential.
patent · Jul 21, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01229
A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPRs have unusually high numbers of prior‑art citations and often rely on new references introduced during the post‑grant proceeding. Expert testimony and novel evidence play a key role in the Board’s unpatentability findings.
patent · Jul 21, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01229
Microsoft and Dialect jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under trade‑secret rules. The request cites statutory authority to limit public disclosure of the agreement.
patent denied · Jul 21, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01229
The USPTO denied Microsoft’s petition to institute an Inter Partes Review of Dialect’s patents, citing the age of the patents, subsidiary ownership issues, and a parallel district‑court case.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 21, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01193
Microsoft and Dialect settled their IPR dispute over Patent 7,917,367 before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding.
patent denied · Jul 21, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01193
Microsoft’s petition for an inter partes review of several older patents was denied on discretionary grounds. The Board cited the subsidiary’s prior ownership, the patents’ age, and a parallel district‑court case as reasons to avoid duplication of effort.
