US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 75 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Jun 19, 2025
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01124
Aerin Medical has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Neurent’s ’262 patent, arguing they are obvious over four prior‑art references covering nasal neuromodulation technology.
patent denied · Jun 19, 2025
Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01124
The USPTO Director denied institution for the IPR proceedings involving Aerin Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., halting further trial.
patent · Jun 17, 2025
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
· PGR2025-00056
Geotab has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Fractus’s ’149 patent covering smartphone antenna designs, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Jun 17, 2025
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01161
Google has filed a Petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO Director’s denial of institution for patent 7,804,891, alleging statutory and procedural violations.
patent · Jun 17, 2025
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01161
Google seeks Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR on a communication‑quality patent. The patent owner argues the Director’s authority is exclusive and the petition’s APA claims are meritless. The Board is urged to deny the Director Review request.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 17, 2025
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01099
Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE settled their IPR against Champion Power's dual‑fuel selector switch patent. They filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
patent · Jun 17, 2025
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01099
Petitioners jointly request that the settlement agreement for the Dual Fuel Selector Switch patent be kept confidential and separate from the PTAB file.
patent denied · Jun 17, 2025
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01161
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision to deny institution of IPR2025-01161 involving patent 7,804,891. The denial upholds the earlier institution refusal.
patent · Jun 17, 2025
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01154
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging all 36 claims of Nokia’s ’267 patent on the ground of obviousness, relying on two prior‑art video‑coding applications (Karczewicz‑I and II). The petition argues that the combination of these references teaches the same higher‑precision motion‑prediction techniques.
patent · Jun 17, 2025
Apple Inc. v.LS Cable & System Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01141
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all claims of LS Cable’s 8,013,568 patent covering contactless battery charging. The petition relies on multiple obviousness grounds using prior‑art references such as Baarman‑878, NCP1800, Horowitz, Veselic and Baarman‑267.
patent · Jun 17, 2025
Evenflo Company, Inc. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01140
Evenflo has filed an IPR petition challenging Baby Jogger’s stroller patent (US 11,577,771). The petition attacks priority and asserts obviousness over five prior‑art references covering claims 1‑15. The case is pending institution by the PTAB.
patent · Jun 17, 2025
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01161
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of U.S. Patent 7,804,891, alleging obviousness over a combination of cellular‑standard prior art. The petition argues the examiner missed critical references and that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
patent · Jun 17, 2025
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01099
Generac and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Champion Power’s ’667 dual‑fuel generator patent, alleging obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references.
patent denied · Jun 17, 2025
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
· PGR2025-00056
The PTAB denied institution for the petitioner's IPR challenge against a wireless device patent related to antenna complexity. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to combine prior art references, specifically because such combinations violated critical spatial diversity requirements of the patented invention.
patent denied · Jun 17, 2025
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01161
The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, meaning no trials will proceed in these cases.
patent denied · Jun 17, 2025
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01154
The USPTO denied institution of IPR petitions filed by ASUSTeK against Nokia, preventing the trial on patentability issues.
patent denied · Jun 17, 2025
Apple Inc. v.LS Cable & System Ltd. et al.
· IPR2025-01141
The USPTO Board denied institution of the IPR for Apple Inc. against LS Cable & System Ltd., finding that Apple failed to meet the legal threshold required to proceed with the challenge.
patent instituted · Jun 17, 2025
Evenflo Company, Inc. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01140
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01140 and related proceedings after determining the petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard. This moves the cases forward to merits review.
patent instituted · Jun 16, 2025
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01114
Snap’s IPR petition challenging Nokia’s video‑compression patent was instituted, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 23 claims based on MPEG‑1 and H.263 prior art.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 16, 2025
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01114
Snap and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,175,148 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, which the Board granted, also ordering the settlement documents to be treated as confidential.
patent · Jun 16, 2025
Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01114
Snap has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Nokia’s video‑encoding patent, alleging obviousness over MPEG‑1 and H.263 standards. The petition details how each claim limitation is disclosed in the prior‑art references.
patent · Jun 16, 2025
Almendra Pte. Ltd. et al. v.Fienile Agronecócios LTDA
· PGR2025-00055
Almendra Pte. Ltd. has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,089,543 B2, asserting indefiniteness, lack of enablement, abstract‑idea ineligibility, and obviousness over Rosen and Richardville. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑7.
patent · Jun 16, 2025
Amazon.com, Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC
· IPR2025-01167
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 40 claims of VB Assets’ ’385 patent covering voice‑enabled shopping. The petition relies on eight §103 obviousness grounds using prior art such as Li, Chen, Barnes, Kennewick and Lee.
patent · Jun 16, 2025
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.USTA Technology, LLC
· IPR2025-01166
AT&T has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of USTA’s ’720 patent claims, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art MIMO and Wi‑Fi standards. The petition relies on Walton, IEEE 802.11a, Hamabe, and Gubbi references.
