US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 66 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent denied · May 3, 2025
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00586
Google has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against TJTM’s ’853 patent. The company alleges the USPTO retroactively applied new rules, violating due process and the APA. Google seeks vacatur of the denial and referral to the Board.
patent · May 3, 2025
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00661
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,459,863 covering electric‑powered multi‑plunger fracturing pump systems. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references, chiefly Fischer, to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · May 3, 2025
Google LLC v.TJTM Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00586
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of TJTM Technologies’ ’853 patent, which covers a mobile‑device “inactive mode” for reducing driver distraction. The petition relies on obviousness over Cazanas, Frye, and Zhou and argues there is no basis for discretionary denial.
patent · May 2, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00543
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent 9,619,578. The petition argues the Board abused discretion by misapplying settled‑expectation doctrine and ignoring examiner error. Samsung seeks reversal and institution of the review.
patent · May 2, 2025
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00532
Stratasys has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn the referral and institution of an IPR covering its 3D‑printing patent. The company argues the PTAB misapplied Fintiv factors and that the parallel district‑court case makes the IPR redundant. It seeks termination of the proceeding under § 314(a).
patent · May 2, 2025
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00531
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology challenges Stratasys’s request for Director Review of an IPR on patent 9,168,698, arguing the referral decision was proper and no new grounds exist. The response stresses correct application of the Fintiv factors and a broad stipulation that avoids duplicate litigation.
patent terminated or settled · May 2, 2025
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
· IPR2025-00580
Apple and ImberaTek have jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending IPR over U.S. Patent 8,222,723 following a settlement of their broader dispute. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.
patent terminated or settled · May 2, 2025
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
· IPR2025-00576
Apple and ImberaTek settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB could institute a trial. The Board granted the joint motions, treated the settlement as confidential, and terminated the proceedings.
patent denied · May 2, 2025
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00532
The PTAB denied the petitioner's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Stratasys’s 3D‑printing patent (US 10,556,381). The institution decisions therefore remain in force.
patent · May 2, 2025
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
· IPR2025-00580
Apple and ImberaTek filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential, keeping it separate from the patent file and limiting public access.
patent · May 2, 2025
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00532
An email informs the petitioner that a Director Review request has been filed in the Stratasys 3D‑printing IPR, restricting the petitioner’s reply to a 15‑page, no‑new‑evidence submission within five business days.
patent · May 2, 2025
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00531
Court decision.
patent · May 2, 2025
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00531
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Stratasys’s 3‑D‑printer force‑detection patent (US 9,168,698) on multiple obviousness grounds, citing Warren, Eshed, Calderon, RepRap forum disclosures, and Napadensky. The petition also addresses discretionary issues under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
patent · May 2, 2025
Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.
· IPR2025-00510
Linkplay Technology petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sonos’s ’883 patent covering audio device network setup, asserting anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial does not apply.
patent instituted · May 2, 2025
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00531
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Stratasys's 3D printing patent (9168698) after finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail over Warren. The trial will address obviousness claims based on various prior art references.
patent denied · Apr 30, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00936
The PTAB denied Wilus's request to address recent director review decisions and submit new evidence for five IPRs involving Samsung. Wilus sought a short extension to incorporate claim‑construction arguments from pending district‑court litigation, but the Director upheld the existing schedule.
patent · Apr 30, 2025
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
· IPR2025-00929
Geotab seeks rehearing of the USPTO Director’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition, arguing the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and exceeded statutory authority. The petition highlights conflicts with the Celgene precedent and procedural violations under the APA.
patent instituted · Apr 30, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00936
Samsung contests the patent owner’s arguments that the Lee and Choudhury references do not teach the claimed BSS‑color disabling features. The petitioner seeks denial of the patent owner’s Director Review request, keeping the IPR instituted.
patent denied · Apr 30, 2025
Geotab Inc. et al. v.FRACTUS, S.A.
· IPR2025-00929
The USPTO denied Geotab’s request for rehearing of its IPR challenge against Fractus’s telematics patent, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution refusal.
patent instituted · Apr 30, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00936
The USPTO Director denied Samsung's petitions for review of institution decisions in multiple IPRs, leaving the institutions in place.
patent · Apr 30, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00936
Wilus Institute requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Samsung’s Wi‑Fi BSS‑color patent, arguing the Board misinterpreted prosecution statements and ignored key arguments about the Lee and Choudhury references.
patent · Apr 30, 2025
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-00843
Shenzhen Shokz filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the institution of an IPR that challenges its modular earphone patent. The owner argues the petition relies on prior art already considered by the examiner, making discretionary denial appropriate.
patent denied · Apr 30, 2025
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
· IPR2025-00843
Suzhou Mojawa challenges Shenzhen Shokz’s headset patent in an IPR. The petitioner argues the Patent Owner’s Director Review request fails to show any erroneous findings of fact, and the Acting Director’s referral was proper. The Board is urged to deny the request.
patent · Apr 30, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00935
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of the ’163 Wi‑Fi patent, asserting they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering BSS‑color techniques. The petition seeks institution under 35 U.S.C. §103 and argues PTAB discretion should not block the review.
