US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 80 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Jun 5, 2025
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
· IPR2025-00888
Petitioner OnePlus filed Director Review requests for IPR2025-00887 and IPR2025-00888. The PTAB Director limited the patent owner Pantech’s response to 15 pages, to be filed within five business days, and barred new evidence.
patent · Jun 5, 2025
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC
· PGR2025-00047
Home Depot has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 84 claims of H2 Intellect’s U.S. Patent 12,056,736, alleging abstract‑idea ineligibility and obviousness over prior art. The petition relies on §101 and §103 grounds, citing Elliott, Jacob and Sakamoto references.
patent · Jun 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Bootler, LLC
· IPR2025-00967
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Bootler’s ’683 patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues no discretionary denial applies and that the prior art was not cited during prosecution.
patent · Jun 5, 2025
Coretronic Corporation et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-00941
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1, 7, and 8 of Maxell’s 7,159,988 projection‑optics patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Jun 5, 2025
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
· IPR2025-00887
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Pantech’s U.S. Patent 8,995,372, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references covering carrier‑aggregation random access.
patent · Jun 5, 2025
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
· IPR2025-00888
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight Pantech LTE‑muting claims, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Chandrasekhar‑I, Chandrasekhar‑II, and TI standards.
patent · Jun 5, 2025
Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.
· IPR2025-00970
Be Smarter petitions the PTAB to invalidate Yondr's ’788 patent covering lockable cases for electronic devices, citing prior art that anticipates and renders the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑8.
patent denied · Jun 5, 2025
Coretronic Corporation et al. v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-00941
The Director denied institution of the IPR against Maxell's patent 7159988, citing settled expectations and potential duplication with a parallel district court case.
patent · Jun 4, 2025
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00742
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition against Mullen Industries’ location‑based gaming patent, asserting that fifteen claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Levesque, Ronzani, Fager and Ohshima.
patent instituted · Jun 4, 2025
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00742
Meta Platforms successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Mullen Industries LLC regarding augmented reality and location-based gaming claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Levesque and Ronzani, setting the stage for trial.
patent denied · Jun 3, 2025
Western Digital Technologies et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2025-00701
Western Digital’s IPR petition challenging a magnetic tunnel junction patent was denied, as the Board found the obviousness arguments unpersuasive. No claims were instituted for review.
patent · Jun 3, 2025
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
· IPR2025-00608
NVIDIA has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPR against Neural AI’s GPU‑AI patent. The petitioner argues the Board ignored trial‑date timing data and the patent’s recent issuance, which should weigh against discretionary denial.
patent denied · Jun 3, 2025
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
· IPR2025-00608
The Director denied NVIDIA's request for rehearing of a discretionary denial of institution in an IPR involving patent RE49461. The original denial of institution remains in effect.
patent · Jun 3, 2025
Western Digital Technologies et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2025-00701
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Godo Kaisha’s MRAM patent, arguing they are obvious over Parkin, Wang, Soukup, and Bowen. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial.
patent · Jun 3, 2025
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
· IPR2025-00698
Savant Technologies (GE Lighting) has filed an IPR petition challenging Feit Electric’s 8,614,539 patent covering white‑light LED devices with TiO diffusing layers, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Jun 3, 2025
NVIDIA Corporation v.Neural AI, LLC
· IPR2025-00608
NVIDIA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Neural AI’s RE49461 patent covering GPU‑based neural network execution. The petition relies on six obviousness grounds based on Buck, Wilt, nnet, ANN and GPU Gems references. It also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
patent · Jun 3, 2025
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
· IPR2025-00623
UiPath has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Rule 14’s ’679 patent on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Fintiv factors preclude discretionary denial and includes a stipulation against parallel district‑court litigation.
patent · Jun 3, 2025
Roche Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Trividia Health, Inc.
· IPR2025-00553
Roche Diabetes Care petitions the PTAB to invalidate Trividia Health’s 8,128,981 patent covering glucose test strip manufacturing, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art laser‑ablation references. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and opposes discretionary denial.
patent · Jun 3, 2025
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Blossom Holdco Limited et al.
· IPR2025-00554
Shenzhen Root Technology petitions to invalidate U.S. Patent 11,806,454 covering a wearable breast pump, arguing the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
patent denied · Jun 3, 2025
Western Digital Technologies et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2025-00701
Western Digital Technologies, Inc.'s IPR petition against patent number 10367138 was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits under Section 103 grounds.
patent instituted · Jun 3, 2025
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
· IPR2025-00698
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Feit Electric Company, Inc., challenging 14 claims of patent 8614539. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claimed LED device components are unpatentable over prior art combinations.
patent instituted · Jun 3, 2025
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Willow Blossom Holdco Limited et al.
· IPR2025-00554
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. successfully had its Inter Partes Review petition instituted against Willow Blossom Holdco Limited for infringing on breast pump system patents. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with the obviousness claims, allowing the case to move forward to trial.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 2, 2025
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
· IPR2025-00584
Apple and ImberaTek settled all disputes in a series of inter partes reviews covering U.S. Patent No. 11,716,816, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before institution. The settlement agreement was designated confidential business information.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 2, 2025
Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC
· IPR2025-00581
Apple and ImberaTek have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 8,368,201 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.
