US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 87 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent denied · May 28, 2025
Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia
· IPR2025-01066
Caption Health, Inc.'s IPR challenge against the University of British Columbia's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the combination of prior art references failed to teach or suggest critical elements related to quality assessment in echocardiographic image analysis.
patent terminated or settled · May 27, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
· IPR2025-01062
Amazon and AWS filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR challenge to DivX's video‑transcoding patent (U.S. 10,715,806). The Board was asked to terminate the proceeding, citing good cause and efficiency.
patent · May 27, 2025
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
· IPR2025-01047
National Steel Car seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its freight‑car patent, arguing the petitioner lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that continuing would waste Board resources.
patent terminated or settled · May 27, 2025
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
· IPR2025-01038
Lattice Semiconductor and Technicolor have settled their dispute, filing a joint notice to vacate the scheduled case management conference and dismiss the case.
patent · May 27, 2025
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
· IPR2025-01047
FreightCar America filed an authorized response opposing National Steel Car's request for Director Review of the IPR institution decision on U.S. Patent 8,132,515. The petitioner contends the request is procedurally improper, relies on new evidence, and is speculative. The Board is urged to deny the request and continue the IPR.
patent terminated or settled · May 27, 2025
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
· IPR2025-01039
Lattice Semiconductor and Technicolor have settled their dispute, executing a settlement agreement and requesting the court to vacate the upcoming case management conference. The settlement includes payment and a stipulation of dismissal, effectively ending the litigation.
patent · May 27, 2025
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
· IPR2025-01048
FreightCar America filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of U.S. Patent 8,132,515, asserting that the hopper‑car features were obvious in view of historic rail‑car literature. The petition relies on multiple early‑20th‑century references and expert testimony to demonstrate lack of novelty.
patent · May 27, 2025
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00883
Hisense has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of VideoLabs' ’304 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Russ and Robert patents.
patent · May 27, 2025
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00882
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VideoLabs' ’236 patent covering conditional access and DRM bridging. The petition relies on three prior patents—Russ, Robert, and Eskicioglu—to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
patent · May 27, 2025
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00881
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate VideoLabs’ U.S. Patent 8,291,236 covering conditional‑access and DRM bridging, citing the Russ patent as prior art for anticipation and obviousness.
patent · May 27, 2025
Hisense USA Corporation et al. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00880
Hisense has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VideoLabs' ’236 patent claims covering conditional access and DRM bridging. The petition relies on three prior‑art patents (Russ, Robert, Eskicioglu) to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
patent · May 27, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
· IPR2025-01062
Amazon has filed a petition to invalidate DivX’s 10,715,806 video‑transcoding patent, asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art such as Sambe, Vetro, and Gu. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary statutes.
patent · May 27, 2025
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
· IPR2025-01047
FreightCar America filed an IPR petition to invalidate National Steel Car’s 8,132,515 hopper‑car patent. The petitioner asserts that all 44 claims are obvious over a century of prior art, including Hart and historic cyclopedias. The Board has yet to rule on the petition.
patent · May 27, 2025
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
· IPR2025-01046
FreightCar America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of National Steel Car’s hopper‑car patent, asserting that the invention was disclosed in early rail‑car literature and patents dating back to 1919.
patent · May 27, 2025
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
· IPR2025-01039
Intel, Dell and Dell Technologies have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of General Video's '437 patent covering serial video/audio transmission, arguing obviousness over Kim, Shin and Myers. The petition relies on expert testimony and cites multiple district‑court cases involving the patent.
patent · May 27, 2025
Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC
· IPR2025-01038
Intel and Dell have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate General Video’s ’437 patent covering robust subset encoding of video and audio data over a serial link. They argue the claims are obvious over prior patents by Kim, Shin, and Myers.
patent instituted · May 27, 2025
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
· IPR2025-01047
The PTAB instituted review of IPR2025-01047 regarding the hopper car design patent (8132515). The Board found Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 44 challenged claims based on obviousness (§ 103).
patent instituted · May 27, 2025
FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited
· IPR2025-01046
FreightCar America, Inc. successfully challenged National Steel Car Limited's patent claims in an IPR proceeding. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on independent claim 2 based on obviousness over prior art references. This decision keeps the dispute alive for trial on several key claims.
patent · May 24, 2025
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
· IPR2025-01055
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines petition the PTAB to invalidate Intellectual Ventures' 8027326 patent covering Wi‑Fi channel bonding, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Gardner and Mori.
patent denied · May 24, 2025
American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
· IPR2025-01055
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines failed to institute their IPR against Intellectual Ventures' patent, as the Board found they could not meet the burden of proof regarding claim construction and obviousness. The denial hinged on the Petitioner’s failure to clearly articulate how it would construe key indefinite terms in its petition.
patent · May 23, 2025
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-01010
Google LLC seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that instituted review of its eight‑year‑old CDN patent (U.S. Pat. 10,057,322). Sandpiper CDN, LLC argues the Board ignored settled‑expectations doctrine and misapplied discretionary‑denial standards.
patent terminated or settled · May 23, 2025
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-01010
Kaifi LLC and Amazon reached a settlement in principle, prompting a joint motion to stay all court deadlines while the parties finalize their agreement and prepare dismissal filings.
patent instituted · May 23, 2025
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-01010
Google responded to Sandpiper CDN’s Director Review request, asserting that the patent owner forfeited its settled‑expectations argument and that the Fintiv factors support referral. The Board had already instituted the IPR, and the Director’s review was denied.
patent denied · May 23, 2025
Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
· IPR2025-01010
The Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Sandpiper CDN's patent 10,057,322. The institution decisions therefore remain in effect.
