US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 84 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent instituted · Mar 13, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00728
The PTAB decided to institute trial on all challenged claims of the '921 patent, despite preliminary evidence not supporting anticipation over Schaffer. The Board adopted a broad definition of 'filament' but ultimately found that the claim language required flexibility based on intrinsic and extrinsic teachings.
patent · Mar 12, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KIWI Intellectual Assets Corporation
· IPR2026-00164
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging KIWI’s RE50,307 USB socket patent, asserting that all 93 claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Andre, Lufan, Yuming, Lee, Yen, Zhenyu and USB 3.0. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
patent · Mar 12, 2025
Citadel Securities LLC v.HFT Solutions, LLC
· IPR2026-00151
Citadel Securities petitions the PTAB to invalidate 11 claims of HFT Solutions' FPGA‑PLL synchronization patent, asserting that the invention was already disclosed in Altera’s white paper and related technical manuals, as well as a 2012 academic paper on low‑latency trading.
patent denied · Mar 11, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2026-00095
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of institution decisions in four IPRs against Sandpiper CDN’s CDN patents. The denial leaves the original institution rulings intact.
patent · Mar 11, 2025
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2026-00093
Accelight Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate all twelve claims of Applied Optoelectronics' 10,578,818 optical transceiver patent, citing Wang, Koutrokois, and Tsai as anticipatory and obvious prior art.
patent denied · Mar 11, 2025
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2026-00093
Applied Optoelectronics successfully opposed Accelight Technologies’ request for director review, arguing the March 11 memo was inapplicable and that the petition’s grounds were weak. The PTAB upheld the director’s discretionary denial of institution for the IPR.
patent · Mar 11, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2026-00095
Microsoft seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision that unusually instituted review of Sandpiper's expired CDN patent. The brief argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations policy and erred in fact finding.
patent · Mar 11, 2025
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2026-00093
Accelight Technologies, a small business, seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Applied Optoelectronics’ optical transceiver patent. The petition emphasizes strong anticipation and obviousness grounds and argues that the patent owner’s conduct and the case’s complexity favor institution.
patent · Mar 11, 2025
Terumo BTC, Inc v.Haemonetics Corporation
· PGR2026-00009
Terumo BCT has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, arguing anticipation, obviousness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references covering blood‑fractionation and calculation methods.
patent · Mar 11, 2025
Terumo BTC, Inc v.Haemonetics Corporation
· PGR2026-00009
Terumo BCT has filed a corrected PGR petition challenging Haemonetics' plasma‑collection patent (US 12,324,873). The petition alleges anticipation, obviousness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent · Mar 11, 2025
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2026-00073
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of SoundClear’s ’675 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines seven distinct obviousness grounds and argues against discretionary denial.
patent instituted · Mar 11, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2026-00095
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution for IPR2026-00095, allowing Microsoft Corporation to challenge Sandpiper CDN's patent 8478903.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 10, 2025
Apple Inc. v.--
· IPR2025-01572
Apple moved to withdraw its IPR against Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 10,064,055 after the related Texas lawsuit was dismissed. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
patent · Mar 10, 2025
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01375
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential business information, limiting public access.
patent · Mar 10, 2025
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01375
Snap and Hisense have settled their IPR with Nokia over patent 11,805,267. The parties jointly request that the settlement agreement be treated as business confidential information and that the proceeding be terminated as to Hisense.
patent · Mar 10, 2025
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01375
Hisense USA Corporation and Nokia Technologies Oy have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 11,805,267. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and argues that termination will save resources and promote settlement policy.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 10, 2025
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01375
Snap Inc. and Hisense settled their disputes with Nokia Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPRs before institution. The Board granted the parties' joint motions and kept the settlement agreements confidential.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 10, 2025
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01375
Snap Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01375 after reaching a settlement. The parties seek to keep the settlement confidential and end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent · Mar 10, 2025
SNAP INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
· IPR2025-01375
Snap and Hisense have filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’267 video‑compression patent, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of prior art such as Wada and the Karczewicz applications. The petition seeks cancellation of all 36 claims.
patent · Mar 10, 2025
Apple Inc. v.--
· IPR2025-01572
Apple Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review of Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent No. 10,064,055, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds, each mapping specific claims to prior art such as Lundblade, Jobst, Hardjono and others.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 9, 2025
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01423
MWE Investments and Champion Power Equipment settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,530,654 and jointly requested that the settlement agreement be kept confidential, while MWE moved to withdraw from the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 9, 2025
TOP GLORY TRADING GROUP INC. et al. v.Cole Haan LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01392
Exhibit 2002 is the settlement agreement in IPR2025-01392 between Top Glory Trading Group, DP Dream Pairs and Cole Haan, ending the challenge to U.S. Patent 10,327,511 covering footwear design.
patent · Mar 9, 2025
TikTok Inc. v.ShopSee, Inc.
· IPR2025-01485
This exhibit is a memorandum announcing a new PTAB policy that panels will resolve all raised grounds in final written decisions for IPRs and PGRs without oral hearings, aiming for faster, more efficient outcomes.
patent terminated or settled · Mar 9, 2025
MWE Investments, LLC et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
· IPR2025-01423
The PTAB granted a settlement motion, terminating the IPRs against Harbor Freight Tools USA and MWE Investments while keeping Generac Powers Systems as a remaining petitioner. Settlement agreements were made confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317.
