US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 72 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Jun 26, 2025
Perfect Corporation v.Zugara, Inc.
· IPR2025-01144
Perfect Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 13 claims of Zugara’s virtual‑try‑on patent, asserting obviousness over prior‑art patents and CyberLink’s YouCam 3 publications.
patent · Jun 26, 2025
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
· IPR2025-01195
Sarepta has filed an IPR petition challenging Genzyme’s 7,704,721 AAV vector patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art purification methods. The petition cites Auricchio, Konz, Potter and related references to support its grounds.
patent denied · Jun 26, 2025
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
· IPR2025-01195
The USPTO Director denied institution for several Inter Partes Review petitions, including one concerning Sarepta Therapeutics and Genzyme Corporation's patent 7704721.
patent denied · Jun 26, 2025
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
· IPR2025-01194
The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01194) involving Sarepta Therapeutics and Genzyme Corporation, meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent.
patent · Jun 25, 2025
American Fuji Seal, Inc. et al. v.Brook & Whittle Ltd.
· IPR2025-01176
American Fuji Seal has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Brook + Whittle’s 2024 recyclable shrink label patent, asserting obviousness over Schurr and over Kitano combined with Lee.
patent · Jun 25, 2025
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01126
Aerin Medical has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑30 of Neurent’s ’973 patent, arguing obviousness over Townley and Wolf‑003/Wolf‑290 disclosures. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent · Jun 25, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
· IPR2025-00993
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of W&Wsens’ ’871 photodetector patent, asserting obviousness over earlier imaging patents by Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu.
patent denied · Jun 25, 2025
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01126
The USPTO Director denied institution for several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, including IPR2025-01126. This procedural denial means no trial will be held on the challenged patents.
patent · Jun 24, 2025
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· IPR2025-01175
Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 11,589,970 dental mouthpiece patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Park, Baughan, Johnson, Black and Hirsch.
patent · Jun 24, 2025
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· IPR2025-01175
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Solmetex’s 2023 intraoral mesh patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over five earlier dental mouthpiece references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
patent · Jun 24, 2025
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· IPR2025-01175
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging ten claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 12‑21 and argues that the patent owner broadened claim scope after product launch.
patent · Jun 24, 2025
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01150
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging CardWare’s ’538 patent covering mobile payment tokenization. The petition asserts that claims 19‑30 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent · Jun 24, 2025
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01125
Aerin Medical seeks IPR cancellation of Neurent's U.S. Patent 12,089,889 covering a nasal neuromodulation device, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references and lack of written description.
patent · Jun 24, 2025
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· IPR2025-01175
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 25 claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references. The petition outlines eight grounds and requests institution of the review.
patent · Jun 24, 2025
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01146
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging seven claims of CardWare’s ’520 patent covering contactless mobile ATM transactions. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Gill, Smith, Kay, and Gomez references under §103 and seeks institution of the review.
patent · Jun 24, 2025
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01149
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 18 claims of CardWare’s ’538 patent covering tokenized NFC payments. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references.
patent · Jun 24, 2025
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01145
Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 10,339,520, challenging all 17 claims as obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines six grounds covering the full claim set and seeks institution of the IPR.
patent · Jun 24, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01165
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 14 claims of U.S. Patent 11,664,926, asserting they are obvious over the Chu standard and IEEE 802.11ax draft specifications. The petition relies on 102(a) prior art predating the critical date and seeks institution of the IPR.
patent denied · Jun 24, 2025
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· IPR2025-01175
The PTAB denied Ascentcare Dental Products' IPR petition against Solmetex, LLC's dental device patent due to procedural timing issues. The Board found the patent was a post-AIA patent and the petition was filed too early.
patent instituted · Jun 24, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-01165
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01165, allowing Samsung Electronics to proceed with challenging Wilus Institute's patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
patent denied · Jun 24, 2025
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01150
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple IPR petitions, halting the review process before any trial could begin.
patent denied · Jun 24, 2025
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01149
The USPTO Director denied the institution of IPR proceedings, including one involving Apple Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent claims.
patent denied · Jun 24, 2025
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01146
The USPTO Director denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against CardWare Inc.'s patent 10339520, ending the current phase of the proceeding.
patent denied · Jun 24, 2025
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01145
The USPTO Board denied institution of the IPR petition filed by Apple Inc. against CardWare Inc.'s patent 10339520, meaning no trial will proceed.
