US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 62 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent denied · Jul 18, 2025
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
· IPR2025-01325
Wapp Tech successfully opposed Capital One’s request for Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR, arguing the petitioner misapplied statutory requirements and presented no valid procedural violations.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
· IPR2025-01325
Capital One challenges the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for patent 8,924,192, asserting statutory violations and procedural defects. The petition highlights failure to consider required briefing, lack of a three‑member panel, and missing APA compliance. It seeks vacatur of the decision and a proper institution ruling.
patent denied · Jul 18, 2025
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01323
The USPTO denied Union Electric’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01323, keeping the institution decision intact.
patent denied · Jul 18, 2025
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01322
The USPTO Director denied Union Electric's request for review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the challenge to patent 10,668,430. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01323
Union Electric Company requests Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial and force an IPR on MES, Inc.’s ‘225 mercury‑removal patent, arguing the patent is invalid in light of extensive prior art and prior Board findings.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01323
Court decision.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01324
Court decision.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01322
Union Electric filed Director Review requests for IPR2025-01322, -01323, and -01324. The PTAB Director instructed MES, Inc. to respond within five business days, limited to 15 pages and no new evidence.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
LiveIntent, Inc. v.DATONICS, LLC
· IPR2025-01318
LiveIntent has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of DATONICS’s ’445 patent on the ground of obviousness. The petition relies on the Beyda and Herz publications as prior art.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd. et al. v.First Solar, Inc.
· IPR2025-01130
JinkoSolar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of First Solar’s 9,130,074 patent, alleging lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on Tamura, Borden, Rana and combinations with Gan, Kwark, and Swanson.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.--
· IPR2025-01327
Reolink Innovation filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of its ’655 peer‑to‑peer searching system patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness based on five prior‑art publications. The petition enumerates eight grounds covering §§102 and 103, mapping each claim to the cited references.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01323
Union Electric has filed an IPR petition challenging 25 claims of the ’225 patent covering mercury removal from coal‑flue gas. The petition alleges lack of written description and asserts that six prior‑art references anticipate or render the claims obvious. Institution of the IPR is sought.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01324
Union Electric Company has filed an IPR petition challenging MES’s 10,933,370 patent on mercury‑removal methods, asserting lack of written description and obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑6, 8, 11, 14‑15.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
Capital One, N.A. et al. v.Wapp Tech Corp. et al.
· IPR2025-01325
Capital One seeks IPR of Wapp Tech’s 2014 patent covering mobile photo‑editing apps, arguing the ten claims are obvious over prior art such as Lee, Jiang, Tran, and Poulin‑910.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-01322
Union Electric has filed an IPR petition challenging 28 claims of the ’430 mercury‑removal patent, asserting lack of written description and that the claims are anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
LiveIntent, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
· IPR2025-01317
LiveIntent petitions to invalidate 42 claims of Intent IQ’s ’398 patent, asserting that the invention is obvious in view of prior‑art profiling systems (Eldering, Banga) and IPv6 standards. The petition relies on expert testimony and RFC publications to support a §103 obviousness argument.
patent · Jul 18, 2025
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
· IPR2025-01242
3D Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Intrepid Automation’s ’511 patent covering DLP‑based additive manufacturing. The petition relies on five grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art references Shkolnik, Sekine, Greene, Jørgensen and Yi. The Board is asked to institute the review and not deny the petition discretionary.
patent instituted · Jul 18, 2025
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.--
· IPR2025-01327
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Reolink Innovation against ThroughTek Co. Ltd., challenging 19 claims of patent 9727655 based on obviousness over prior art combinations like Schwan and Lee.
patent instituted · Jul 18, 2025
3D Systems Corporation et al. v.Intrepid Automation, Inc.
· IPR2025-01242
The USPTO granted institution for five IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01042, IPR2025-01241, IPR2025-01264, IPR2025-01153, and IPR2025-01242) after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent · Jul 17, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-01308
Maxell defends its ’650 Patent on personalized content delivery, arguing that Samsung’s cited prior art (Shindo, Sasaki, Futa, McClellan) does not teach the claimed one‑to‑one content‑to‑device mapping. The response also challenges the petitioner's expert credibility and claim construction.
patent · Jul 17, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-01308
Maxell’s preliminary response argues Samsung’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art (Shindo, Sasaki, Futa, McClellan) does not disclose the patented association‑information features. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
patent terminated or settled · Jul 17, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01321
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,709,772 B1 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, ending the proceeding.
patent · Jul 17, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-01316
Maxell filed a sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,812,646, asserting that the petition is vague, lacks claim constructions, and misstates the patent owner’s position on the “sleep state.” The patent owner urges the Board to deny institution.
patent · Jul 17, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-01316
Maxell contests Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,812,646, arguing that the cited prior art does not disclose the three distinct display modes claimed. The patent owner seeks denial of institution, asserting no reasonable likelihood of success for Samsung.
