US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 74 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent denied · Apr 11, 2025
LiftWerx USA Inc. v.Liftra IP ApS et al.
· IPR2026-00102
The USPTO denied institution for IPR2026-00102 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
patent · Apr 9, 2025
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01514
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent No. 11,176,538 covering limited‑duration payment numbers. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Gomez, Phillips, Casey, and Law, and argues that discretionary denial is not appropriate.
patent · Apr 9, 2025
Google LLC v.CardWare Inc.
· IPR2025-01513
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of CardWare’s ’520 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokens. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
patent · Apr 8, 2025
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
· IPR2025-01374
Haemonetics Corp. seeks Director review to vacate the institution of an IPR filed by Terumo BCT over its plasma‑apheresis patent. The Owner argues the petitioner’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions and failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) warrant denial. The request cites recent Director precedents to support vacatur.
patent · Apr 8, 2025
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
· IPR2025-01346
BPI Labs requests Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Eli Lilly’s tirzepatide patent (US 9,474,780). The petitioner argues the denial misapplies § 325(d), ignores material prosecution errors, and violates APA rulemaking requirements. Consistency with a related pending IPR is also urged.
patent denied · Apr 8, 2025
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
· IPR2025-01346
The USPTO denied BPI Labs’ request for director review of the decision that had refused to institute IPR 2025-01346 against Eli Lilly’s patent 9,474,780. The original denial of institution remains in effect.
patent denied · Apr 8, 2025
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
· IPR2025-01346
Eli Lilly successfully defended its tirzepatide patent after the PTAB denied BPI Labs' request for Director Review of the institution denial, citing strong settled expectations and proper exercise of discretion.
patent · Apr 8, 2025
Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
· IPR2025-01379
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VB Assets’ U.S. Patent 10,755,699, which covers a method for generating natural‑language responses adapted to a user’s manner of speaking. The petition alleges obviousness over three prior‑art references—Kennewick, Cooper, and Matsuda—under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Apr 8, 2025
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-01373
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all five claims of Competitive Access Systems’ residential gateway patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on Challener, Kotzin, Ades, and Xin to demonstrate lack of novelty.
patent · Apr 8, 2025
BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.
· IPR2025-01346
BPI Labs has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Eli Lilly’s 9,474,780 patent covering GLP‑1/GIP co‑agonist peptides. The petition relies on obviousness over three prior‑art references (Alsina‑Fernandez, DiMarchi, Lau). No secondary considerations are alleged.
patent · Apr 8, 2025
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-01372
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Competitive Access Systems' broadband communications device patent, asserting obviousness over Kotzin and Challener references.
patent instituted · Apr 8, 2025
Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation
· IPR2025-01374
The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01374, allowing the petitioner to proceed to trial. The decision was based on the petitioner meeting the non-discretionary standard of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 6, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01103
Apple and Advanced Coding Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,230,101 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 6, 2025
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
· IPR2025-01084
Orca Security and Wiz have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,929,896 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding before a final written decision.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 6, 2025
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01068
Element TV Company and Nokia Technologies settled the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 8,050,321. They jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 6, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01103
Apple and Advanced Coding Technologies reached a settlement, leading to the termination of an inter‑ partes review of Patent 8,230,101 B2. The Board granted the joint motion to end the proceeding and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
patent · Apr 6, 2025
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
· IPR2025-01084
Orca Security and Wiz have jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory protection, arguing it contains highly sensitive business information. The request seeks Board order to treat the agreement as business confidential information and limit its disclosure.
patent terminated or settled · Apr 6, 2025
Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01068
Element TV and Nokia reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑01068 before the Board could institute the review. The PTAB granted the motion, ending the proceeding and treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent · Apr 6, 2025
Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.
· PGR2025-00054
Straumann USA has filed a post‑grant review petition against Smart Denture Conversions’ U.S. Patent 12,156,781 covering dental implant fasteners. The petition alleges indefiniteness, lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over several prior‑art references. Straumann seeks institution of the review and cancellation of all 16 claims.
patent · Apr 6, 2025
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
· IPR2025-01086
Orca Security has filed a petition to invalidate Wiz’s ’549 patent covering AI‑driven cybersecurity incident response. The challenger alleges obviousness over prior art combining a 2022 cybersecurity system (Peters) with a 2024 LLM‑focused disclosure (Lal). The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.
patent · Apr 6, 2025
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
· IPR2025-01084
Orca Security Ltd. has filed a petition for inter partes review of Wiz’s U.S. Patent 11,929,896, asserting that claims 1‑29 are obvious over three prior‑art patents. The petition includes a joint claim construction for “imputed entity” and seeks institution of the IPR under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Apr 6, 2025
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
· IPR2025-01085
Orca Security Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of Wiz’s U.S. Patent 11,936,693, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Calvo, Nguyen, and Datsenko under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Apr 6, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01103
Apple files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 12 claims of U.S. Patent 8,230,101 on obviousness grounds over Lamkin, Franke, Fiechter, and Ito references.
patent · Apr 6, 2025
Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.
· IPR2025-01087
Orca Security has filed a petition for IPR against Wiz’s AI‑cloud security patent, contending that the claims are obvious over existing cloud‑scanning (Shua) and AI‑analysis (Lang) references.
