US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 82 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Mar 21, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-00768
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Audio Pod IP’s 10,805,111 patent covering digital talking‑book playback, arguing that all 16 claims are obvious over prior art such as Prabhakaran and DTB.
patent · Mar 21, 2025
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-00659
Microsoft seeks to invalidate Dialect’s 9,495,957 patent covering natural‑language processing in mobile devices, arguing that claims 7 and 8 are obvious over prior art such as Maes, Coffman, Kennewick and Weissman, and urging the PTAB to institute the IPR.
patent instituted · Mar 21, 2025
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00758
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully challenged The Phelan Group's driver authentication patent (9908508) at the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, including anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Murphy and Petrik. This decision significantly strengthens Mercedes-Benz's position in related district court litigation against Phelan Group.
patent · Mar 20, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-00765
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent was met with a detailed response asserting the denial was proper and that no APA or due‑process violations occurred.
patent · Mar 20, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-00765
Amazon has requested Director Review of six IPRs targeting its audio‑pod patent. The PTAB will decide whether a limited review is permitted, with the patent owner allowed a brief response but no new evidence.
patent denied · Mar 20, 2025
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00732
The USPTO denied Tessell's request for Director Review of the institution denial in its IPR against Nutanix's patent. The Board affirmed the earlier decision, leaving the institution denial in place.
patent · Mar 20, 2025
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00732
Tessell, Inc. has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPR against Nutanix’s patent 10,817,157. The petition argues the Director exceeded authority under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) by applying assignor estoppel, which Federal Circuit precedent bars in IPRs.
patent · Mar 20, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-00765
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 12‑17 of Audio Pod IP’s 8,738,740 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering audio bookmarking and descriptor files.
patent · Mar 20, 2025
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
· IPR2025-00732
Tessell, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑19 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent No. 10,817,157, arguing that the claimed database‑provisioning UI is obvious over known prior art. The petition also argues there is no basis for discretionary denial, urging the Board to institute review.
patent denied · Mar 19, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-00757
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑device patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Acting Director properly exercised discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
patent denied · Mar 19, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-00757
The USPTO denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of multiple IPRs involving Audio Pod IP’s patents. The denial applies to all listed proceedings.
patent · Mar 19, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-00757
Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule that led to a discretionary denial of institution for their IPR petition covering patent 10,091,266.
patent · Mar 19, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-00757
Amazon seeks PTAB Director Review of several IPRs against Audio Pod’s patent; the owner must respond within five days without new evidence.
patent · Mar 19, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-00757
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’266 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack proper priority support.
patent denied · Mar 18, 2025
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
· IPR2025-00637
Pantech successfully defended the Director's discretionary denial of institution for OnePlus's IPR on a LTE patent, arguing no new facts and rejecting the petitioner's all‑or‑none approach.
patent · Mar 18, 2025
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
· IPR2025-00637
OnePlus has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial of its IPR on LTE patent 9,763,283, arguing the examiner missed key prior art and that new PTAB rules were applied retroactively.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 18, 2025
Apple Inc. v.--
· IPR2025-00600
Apple moved to terminate IPR2025-00600 after a reexamination cancelled all claims of the 10,698,989 patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
patent denied · Mar 18, 2025
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
· IPR2025-00637
The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the decision that had denied institution of Pantech’s patent 9,763,283. The denial leaves the institution denial standing.
patent · Mar 18, 2025
T-MOBILE USA, INC. et al. v.Smart RF Inc.
· IPR2025-00692
Petitioners—including T‑Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson and Nokia—seek to invalidate 15 claims of Smart RF’s multi‑band predistortion patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art combinations involving Peroulas, Posti and Cidronali. The petition requests institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
patent · Mar 18, 2025
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-00658
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Dialect’s 8,195,468 patent covering multimodal voice‑assistant technology, asserting obviousness over the Maes, Coffman, and Ittycheriah references. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references, creating a material error, and urges the Board to institute review.
patent · Mar 18, 2025
OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation
· IPR2025-00637
OnePlus has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of Pantech’s LTE dual‑connectivity patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Dudda, Lin, and Pelletier references.
patent instituted · Mar 18, 2025
AROMA 360, LLC v.Air Esscentials, Inc.
· IPR2025-00707
AROMA 360 successfully petitioned the PTAB against Air Esscentials' patent (10092918) regarding aerosol/fluid dispersion technology. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Goubet and Gao-2 prior art references.
patent · Mar 17, 2025
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
· IPR2025-00747
Decent Espresso International seeks an IPR to invalidate all ten claims of U.S. Patent 11,957,271, arguing that the coffee‑brewing concepts are fully disclosed in prior‑art patents such as Startz and Coccia. The petition requests institution and cites strong motivation to combine multiple references.
patent denied · Mar 17, 2025
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
· IPR2025-00747
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for a beverage brewing system patent (11957271), finding that the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial hinged on the Board's determination that key prior art, Buttiker, was not applicable.
