US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 63 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent denied · May 13, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00933
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR against Wilus Institute, citing the petitioner's failure to justify inconsistent claim construction arguments made in district court versus before the Board.
patent · May 12, 2025
Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
· IPR2026-00172
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. Pat. 9,147,297, asserting that its vehicle infotainment control claims are obvious over prior‑art systems such as Zancho, Sundaram, and Demeniuk.
patent · May 12, 2025
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
· IPR2026-00061
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s ’194 patent covering MOS transistor fabrication. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references: Hoentschel262, Wang407, and Wang753.
patent · May 11, 2025
Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.
· IPR2026-00052
Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the IPR against Adeia Media’s 8,542,705 patent before the Board had instituted the trial, citing cost and efficiency. The Board’s prior practice of granting pre‑institution dismissals supports the request.
patent · May 11, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Zophonos Inc.
· IPR2026-00085
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of Zophonos’s hearing‑protection patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering earpieces, wireless communication, and audio‑control interfaces.
patent instituted · May 11, 2025
Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2026-00094
The PTAB granted institution of IPR2026-00094 after reviewing the merits and non-discretionary considerations.
patent · May 9, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-01311
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, asserting that the prior art was already considered, the petition contains false statements, and the expert testimony adds no weight. The owner contends that none of the cited references disclose the claimed dynamic operation‑panel architecture.
patent · May 9, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-01311
Maxell filed a preliminary sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,812,091. The owner argues the petition misreads the claim’s two‑panel requirement and that the cited prior art was already considered by the USPTO, seeking denial of institution.
patent · May 9, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SnapAid Ltd.
· IPR2025-01519
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of SnapAid’s ’901 patent on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, citing a suite of prior‑art references covering image‑quality assessment and camera feedback systems.
patent · May 9, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-01311
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Maxell’s ’091 set‑top‑box patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds covering all claims and cites expert testimony to bolster its position.
patent instituted · May 9, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-01311
The Board granted institution for IPR2025-01311, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review after determining the petitioner met the required likelihood of success standard.
patent · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· PGR2025-00063
Apple, on behalf of Samsung, has filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer and requests that the Board institute the review.
patent · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01254
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering optical sensing, AI processing and cloud connectivity. Apple requests that the Board institute the trial and find all claims unpatentable.
patent · May 8, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01352
A statistical study of 192 IPR final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPR have far more prior‑art citations and often depend on new evidence such as expert testimony. The findings suggest that post‑grant challenges frequently introduce prior art outside the examiner’s original search scope.
patent · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01253
Apple’s IPR petition challenges Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability.
patent · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01253
Samsung and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 patent covering wearable optical health monitors. The petition asserts obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references and asks the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01352
Microsoft and Dialect reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The Board granted the joint motion and ordered the settlement to remain confidential.
patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01352
Microsoft and Dialect reached a settlement that resolves disputes over patent 8,620,659 and other patents, leading to a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review before the Board makes an institution decision.
patent · May 8, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01352
Microsoft and Dialect have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking trade‑secret protections under the CFR. The motion seeks Board‑only access and notification of any disclosure requests.
patent denied · May 8, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01352
The PTAB denied Microsoft’s petition for an inter partes review of five patents owned by Dialect, LLC, exercising discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board cited the patents’ age, subsidiary ownership, and a parallel district court case as reasons to avoid duplication.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01254
The PTAB held that Apple’s wearable physiological measurement claims were obvious over prior‑art pulse‑oximetry references, rendering all challenged claims unpatentable. The decision relied on Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer teachings.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01253
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2021‑00453, finding claims 1,2,7 and 15‑23 of Omni MedSci’s wearable pulse‑oximeter patent unpatentable over prior art, while leaving the remaining claims intact.
patent · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01250
Apple (as petitioner) secured a Final Written Decision finding claims 1,2,7,15‑23 of Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art. The Board affirmed the petitioner's obviousness arguments while leaving claims 3‑6 and 8‑14 intact.
patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01378
Samsung Electronics and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute (IPR2025-01378) before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement documents confidential.
