US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 74 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Jun 20, 2025
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01171
Infineon contests MOSAID’s late Director Review request, asserting that claim‑construction issues were disclosed before the IPR petition and can be reconciled with district‑court constructions. The petitioner offers stipulations to avoid any inconsistent outcomes.
patent · Jun 20, 2025
Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.
· PGR2025-00057
Conjupro Biotherapeutics has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate Ascletis’s U.S. 12,234,236 patent covering small‑molecule GLP‑1R agonists. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and challenges the examiner’s narrow allowance. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent · Jun 20, 2025
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01171
Infineon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 51 claims of MOSAID’s ’306 power‑management patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering power islands and dynamic voltage/frequency scaling. The petition follows a prior IPR that was instituted and later terminated.
patent · Jun 20, 2025
LiveIntent, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
· IPR2025-01160
LiveIntent petitions the PTAB to invalidate AlmondNet's U.S. Patent 8,494,904 covering user profiling for targeted ads, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Robinson, Jaye, Coleman). The petition seeks institution despite anticipated Board discretion issues.
patent · Jun 20, 2025
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01151
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 27 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 11,328,286 covering a dynamic, limited‑use payment card system. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues that printed‑matter limitations lack patentable weight. The case is pending institution.
patent · Jun 20, 2025
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01148
Apple has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging all 23 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent No. 10,810,579 covering mobile‑payment tokenization. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple NFC‑payment references such as Collinge, Lin, and Phillips. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent · Jun 20, 2025
Viant Technology LLC et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
· IPR2025-01163
Viant Technology and LiveIntent petition PTAB to invalidate AlmondNet's 2015 ad‑targeting patent, arguing obviousness over Burdick and a Burdick‑Grannan combination. The petition seeks institution of the IPR.
patent · Jun 20, 2025
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01105
UPPAbaby has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Baby Jogger’s stroller‑seat attachment patent (U.S. 8,955,869) on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Jun 20, 2025
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01106
UPPAbaby has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate seven claims of Baby Jogger’s 9,403,550 stroller‑seat‑attachment patent, arguing obviousness over Liao, Stopp, Chen and Sweeney references.
patent · Jun 20, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
· IPR2025-00994
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,621,360, asserting that the claims covering microstructured photodetectors are obvious over prior art such as Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1,3,5‑6,8‑9.
patent · Jun 20, 2025
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01152
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 72 claims of CardWare’s ’634 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokenization. The petition argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Jun 20, 2025
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
· IPR2025-01142
Microsoft and AT&T have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Lemko’s 8,310,990 patent covering distributed mobile architecture handover, asserting that the claims are anticipated by the earlier Flore publication.
patent instituted · Jun 20, 2025
Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.
· PGR2025-00057
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00057, allowing the challenger to proceed with trial against patent 12234236.
patent denied · Jun 20, 2025
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01171
The Director denied institution of an IPR against MOSAID's patent, ruling that Infineon failed to adequately explain conflicting claim construction positions taken in district court litigation.
patent instituted · Jun 20, 2025
Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
· IPR2025-01171
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01171, allowing Infineon to challenge MOSAID's patent 7051306.
patent denied · Jun 20, 2025
Viant Technology LLC et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
· IPR2025-01163
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, including IPR2025-01163. No trial will be instituted in these proceedings.
patent denied · Jun 20, 2025
LiveIntent, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
· IPR2025-01160
The USPTO Director denied institution for the IPR challenge against AlmondNet's patent 8494904, meaning no trial will proceed on this matter.
patent denied · Jun 20, 2025
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01152
The USPTO Board denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review proceedings, meaning no trials will proceed on the challenged patents.
patent denied · Jun 20, 2025
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01151
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, preventing trials in these cases.
patent denied · Jun 20, 2025
Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01148
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple IPR proceedings, including one involving Apple Inc. and CardWare Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patents.
patent denied · Jun 20, 2025
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation
· IPR2025-01142
The USPTO Board denied institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving Microsoft and Lemko, meaning no trial will proceed.
patent denied · Jun 20, 2025
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01106
The USPTO denied institution for an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding involving Monahan Products and Baby Jogger regarding patent 9403550.
patent denied · Jun 20, 2025
Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01105
The USPTO Board denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition filed by Monahan Products against Baby Jogger regarding patent 8955869.
patent · Jun 19, 2025
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· PGR2025-00058
Ascentcare Dental Products has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of Solmetex’s dental mouthpiece patent, alleging obviousness, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The petition leans on three earlier patents and expert testimony to argue the claims are unpatentable.