US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 64 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00709
Milestone Entertainment filed a response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition targeting 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,650,635. The patent owner argues that the petitioner’s two grounds, based on Schneier143 (alone and with Okita), do not disclose the variable‑over‑time multiplier of Claim 9. Accordingly, Milestone seeks a finding that Claim 9 is not unpatentable.
patent
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
· IPR2025-00708
Milestone Entertainment’s sur‑reply argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails on both the Walker prior‑art and Kelly obviousness grounds, citing lack of written‑description support and missing disclosures for key claim limitations.
patent denied
Western Digital Technologies et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2025-00701
Western Digital’s IPR petition challenging a magnetic tunnel junction patent was denied, as the Board found the obviousness arguments unpersuasive. No claims were instituted for review.
patent terminated or settled
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00718
The Board granted a joint request to treat settlement agreements as business‑confidential and terminated the IPRs for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light after the parties settled. Remaining petitioners’ IPRs continue.
patent denied
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
· IPR2025-00637
Pantech successfully defended the Director's discretionary denial of institution for OnePlus's IPR on a LTE patent, arguing no new facts and rejecting the petitioner's all‑or‑none approach.
patent terminated or settled
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
· IPR2025-00636
Anthony Doors and Energex Enterprises entered into a settlement agreement that includes a $300,000 payment and mutual releases of all claims. The underlying civil action was dismissed with prejudice, and the parties agreed to keep the settlement terms confidential.
patent terminated or settled
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-00699
Amphenol and Credo Technology Group settled four related IPRs before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings and treat the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
patent
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
· IPR2025-00637
OnePlus has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial of its IPR on LTE patent 9,763,283, arguing the examiner missed key prior art and that new PTAB rules were applied retroactively.
patent terminated or settled
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-00699
The ITC investigation into switchable‑connectivity phones and tablets was terminated after Ericsson and Apple filed a joint motion to end the case based on a settlement. The Commission found no reason to deny the motion and declined to review the initial determination.
patent
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
· IPR2025-00636
Anthony Inc. submits an authorized response defending the PTAB Acting Director’s denial of institution for ControlTec’s patent. The brief argues the Director acted within statutory discretion and correctly identified a material error involving prior art Carter.
patent
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
· IPR2025-00636
ControlTec requests the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR on its expired ’847 patent, arguing that the patent’s long life creates strong settled expectations and that the cited Carter reference was already deemed non‑material. The petition seeks discretionary denial under § 314(a).
patent terminated or settled
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00697
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00697 after settling their dispute and dismissing related district‑court litigation.
patent denied
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-00632
Cerebrum Sensor Technologies opposed Revvo Technologies' petition, arguing that Revvo used inconsistent claim constructions across forums without justification. The Board affirmed the Director’s order vacating the institution, denying the petition.
patent terminated or settled
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00754
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board terminated the proceeding on the parties' joint motion.
patent denied
Skullcandy Inc. et al. v.Earin AB
· IPR2025-00690
Skullcandy’s petition to invalidate Earin’s wireless‑earbud patent was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach key claim limitations, so no reasonable likelihood of success was shown.
patent
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00688
PacifiCorp and MidAmerican challenge a mercury‑control patent owned by MES, Inc., arguing that the PTAB, not the MDL, should decide its validity and seeking denial of the patent owner's Director Review request.
patent
Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
· IPR2025-00689
Apple and Sony have moved to withdraw their IPR petition against SiOnyx’s patent, citing lack of opposition and the dismissal of related litigation.
patent terminated or settled
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00661
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services terminated an IPR against U.S. Well Services after a Covenant Not to Sue was executed, leading the Board to dismiss the case before any claims were instituted.
patent
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00687
WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review involving WEC. The motion cites statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement, seeking Board approval to end the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled
Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.
· IPR2025-00699
Amphenol and Credo have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,032,111 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential. The motion cites statutory authority to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information.
patent
Revvo Technologies, Inc. v.Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc.
· IPR2025-00632
Revvo Technologies seeks to reinstate an inter partes review of its automotive sensor patent, arguing that the Board’s earlier institution was proper and that its narrow claim construction is supported by the specification.
patent terminated or settled
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00688
MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review proceeding as to MidAmerican.
patent
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00688
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal rules, limiting its disclosure to government agencies or parties with good cause.
patent instituted
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
· IPR2025-00775
The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00775, leaving Withrow Networks’ patent 10,771,849 B2 instituted.
