US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 65 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent denied · May 8, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01237
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01237, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The decision reviewed multiple other proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
patent · May 6, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01069
Wilus seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its 802.11ax Wi‑Fi patent, arguing the Board ignored settled expectations, misapplied the diverse‑subject‑matter test, and ignored Samsung’s contradictory indefiniteness positions.
patent terminated or settled · May 6, 2025
Perplexity AI, Inc. v.Comet ML, Inc.
· IPR2025-01063
Perplexity AI and Comet ML reached a settlement covering all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,650,968, prompting the PTAB to terminate the IPR before instituting trial and to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
patent denied · May 6, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01069
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01069, leaving the institution of the Wilus patent intact.
patent · May 6, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01069
Samsung challenges Wilus’s request for Director Review of the IPR institution, arguing examiner error and consistent claim constructions. The petitioner seeks denial of the review so the IPR can proceed.
patent terminated or settled · May 6, 2025
Perplexity AI, Inc. v.Comet ML, Inc.
· IPR2025-01063
Perplexity AI and Comet ML have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,650,968 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
patent · May 6, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01069
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Wilus Institute’s U.S. Patent 10,313,077 covering Wi‑Fi coexistence signaling. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple IEEE 802.11‑related prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
patent · May 6, 2025
Perplexity AI, Inc. v.Comet ML, Inc.
· IPR2025-01063
Perplexity AI has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twelve claims of Comet ML’s neural‑network training patent. The challenger asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references—Baker, Lorenz, Shridhar, and Jenatton—under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent instituted · May 6, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01069
Samsung Electronics challenged Wilus Institute's patent claims (1-14) for obviousness over prior art related to Wi-Fi signaling standards. The PTAB found the Petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, instituting the IPR on all 14 claims.
patent terminated or settled · May 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00908
Apple and Apex Beam have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering Apple’s wireless device feedback patent. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination.
patent terminated or settled · May 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00903
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled sixteen inter partes review proceedings covering patent 11,546,110. The Board granted joint motions to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
patent · May 5, 2025
Tesla Inc. v.Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-00943
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of a self‑driving vehicle patent owned by Granite Vehicle Ventures, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · May 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00908
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 5G semi‑persistent scheduling patent, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Fakoorian‑1, Fakoorian‑2, and Takahashi. The petition presents three §103 grounds and seeks institution of the review.
patent · May 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00906
Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate Apex Beam's 5G scheduling patent, asserting obviousness over 3GPP standards.
patent · May 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00897
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 20‑claim LTE‑MIMO patent, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of all claims.
patent · May 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00903
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Apex Beam’s LTE‑MIMO patent, arguing they are obvious over three prior‑art references. The petition requests institution on a §103 ground and argues the Board should not exercise discretion to deny it.
patent · May 5, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2025-00963
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 10,28144, asserting obviousness over Wright and, in combination, Tzannes and Smith. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent instituted · May 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00908
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent (11,108,639) in the PTAB, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claims related to wireless scheduling mechanisms are unpatentable over combinations of Fakoorian-1 and Takahashi. This sets up a major IP battle regarding advanced cellular technology standards.
patent instituted · May 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00897
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Apex Beam Technologies LLC's patent 10,944,527, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art related to massive MIMO and beamforming.
patent · May 4, 2025
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00746
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate three claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑based gaming patent, arguing they are obvious over the earlier Levine application. The petition cites dismissal of the patent in a related district‑court case and argues no discretionary denial factors apply.
patent instituted · May 4, 2025
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00746
Meta Platforms, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Mullen Industries LLC were non-obvious based on prior art (Levine). The Board instituted trial on all challenged claims related to location-based gaming and virtual reality features.
patent terminated or settled · May 3, 2025
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 denied · May 3, 2025
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00586
The PTAB denied Google’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute IPR2025-00586 against TJTM Technologies. Director John A. Squires issued an order denying the petition.
patent · May 3, 2025
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00586
Google’s request for Director Review of the TJTM patent was met with a forceful response from the patent owner, who cites 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and a delayed Sotera stipulation as reasons to deny the review. The PTAB had already denied institution of the underlying IPR.
