US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 87 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Mar 1, 2025
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2025-00342
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2 and 6‑11 of the ’805 patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier autonomous‑vehicle publications. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests the Board to institute the review.
patent instituted · Mar 1, 2025
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
· IPR2025-00405
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.'s patent (11769910). The Board found sufficient evidence that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various prior art references, including Zeng and Zhou. This ruling advances a critical battery technology dispute into trial.
patent denied · Mar 1, 2025
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
· IPR2025-00405
The Director denied institution of IPR for Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd., citing the petition's unfocused nature and inefficient use of Office resources.
patent instituted · Mar 1, 2025
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2025-00342
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II over a vehicle guidance patent. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's narrow claim constructions, finding that the Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
patent · Feb 28, 2025
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
· IPR2025-00665
Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm jointly filed a request asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The filing seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
patent · Feb 28, 2025
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
· IPR2025-00665
Stanley Black & Decker filed an unopposed motion to dismiss an IPR against Viking Arm before the Board had considered the merits, citing a settlement agreement and CFR provisions to preserve resources.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 28, 2025
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v.Viking Arm AS
· IPR2025-00665
Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm AS settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,554,473 B2. The Board dismissed the petition and terminated the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
patent · Feb 28, 2025
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
· IPR2025-00601
Amgen petitions the PTAB to overturn a Director’s denial of institution for an IPR challenging Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s Opdivo dosing patent, arguing the denial misapplied settled‑expectations criteria and ignored European claim abandonments.
patent denied · Feb 28, 2025
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
· IPR2025-00601
The PTAB denied Amgen's request for Director Review of the USPTO's decision not to institute two IPRs against Bristol‑Myers Squibb patents, leaving the institution denials intact.
patent · Feb 28, 2025
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
· IPR2025-00601
Amgen’s request for Director Review of IPR denial is rebuffed by Bristol‑Myers Squibb, which argues the petitioner offers no credible basis and that European prosecution does not affect settled expectations for the U.S. patent.
patent · Feb 28, 2025
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
· IPR2025-00602
The PTAB notified Amgen and Bristol‑Myers Squibb that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025‑00601 and IPR2025‑00602, setting a five‑day deadline for a limited response and prohibiting new evidence.
patent · Feb 28, 2025
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Heron Therapeutics, Inc.
· PGR2025-00035
Azurity has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑30 of Heron’s U.S. 12,115,254 patent covering injectable aprepitant emulsions. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and asserts lack of written description and enablement due to overly broad claim ranges. Institution is requested and discretionary denial is contested.
patent · Feb 28, 2025
Amgen Inc. et al. v.Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
· IPR2025-00603
Amgen petitions the PTAB to invalidate Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s ’529 patent covering anti‑PD‑1/anti‑CTLA‑4 regimens for MSI‑H colorectal cancer, citing anticipation and obviousness over multiple clinical‑trial disclosures. The petition argues no secondary considerations or discretionary grounds support the patent’s validity.
patent denied · Feb 28, 2025
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
· IPR2025-00653
The PTAB denied institution of TankLogix's IPR against SitePro, Inc. regarding claims related to remote control of fluid-handling devices in oil and gas facilities. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness over prior art references Cardamone and Kahn.
patent denied · Feb 28, 2025
TankLogix, LLC v.SitePro, Inc.
· IPR2025-00650
TankLogix, LLC's IPR petition against SitePro, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB, finding insufficient evidence to support anticipation or obviousness challenges. The Board determined that TankLogix failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the record regarding claims related to fluid handling and industrial control systems.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 27, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
· IPR2025-00627
KAIFI and Amazon filed a joint motion stating they have settled the dispute and seek a 45‑day stay of court deadlines.
patent · Feb 27, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
· IPR2025-00627
KAIFI filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR against its 7,689,001 patent should be denied, citing a pending settlement and flaws in the petition’s base challenge.
patent · Feb 27, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
· IPR2025-00627
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of KAIFI’s ’001 patent covering camera‑based indoor location recognition, arguing the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art patents.
patent · Feb 27, 2025
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. et al. v.Kolon Industries, Inc.
· IPR2025-00664
HS Hyosung Advanced Materials Corp. has filed an IPR petition challenging Kolon Industries' 9,617,663 patent on hybrid tire cords, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution, arguing strong statutory and discretionary support.
patent instituted · Feb 27, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00673
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial on all seven challenged claims of SoundClear Technologies' patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon would prevail on its obviousness arguments over various combinations of prior art references, including Shin and Aoyama.
patent · Feb 26, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
· IPR2025-00626
KAIFI LLC filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR petition is unlikely to succeed and that the parties have settled the underlying dispute. The patent owner seeks discretionary denial and plans to request termination of the IPR.
patent · Feb 26, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.KAIFI LLC
· IPR2025-00626
Court decision.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 26, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2025-00481
Samsung and Headwater Research settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,096,055. Both parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceedings, and the petitioner withdrew its request for Director Review.
patent · Feb 26, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2025-00481
Samsung seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on Headwater’s patent 11,096,055. Headwater’s response argues the recission of the Vidal Memo was proper, that discretionary denial is statutorily authorized, and that no notice‑and‑comment rulemaking was required.
