US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 89 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · May 22, 2025
Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC
· IPR2025-01006
Treasure Garden petitions the PTAB to invalidate all seven claims of ATLeisure’s 8,104,492 umbrella patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art umbrellas and proposing claim constructions.
patent · May 22, 2025
Treasure Garden, Inc. v.ATLeisure, LLC
· IPR2025-01005
Treasure Garden has filed an IPR petition challenging all seven claims of ATLeisure’s 8,104,492 umbrella patent, alleging anticipation by Wang ’109/’439 and obviousness over Glatz ’980 and related references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent · May 22, 2025
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-00975
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Telcom Ventures’ 9,832,708 patent covering dual‑air‑interface smartphones and NFC‑based payments, asserting obviousness over Jain and Dua references.
patent · May 21, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-01041
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition on the basis of a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, violates the APA, and is arbitrary and capricious. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the IPR.
patent · May 21, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-01041
The PTAB Director received a request from Amazon and co‑petitioner for Director Review of IPR2025‑01041 concerning patent 10,735,488. The Patent Owner, Audio Pod IP, LLC, may file a 15‑page response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence permitted.
patent denied · May 21, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-01041
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review, upholding the Deputy Director’s discretionary denial of institution for Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent. The Board found Amazon’s APA and due‑process arguments unpersuasive.
patent denied · May 21, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-01041
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the PTAB's decision not to institute an IPR against Audio Pod IP's patent 10,735,488.
patent · May 21, 2025
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
· IPR2025-01041
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’488 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art CDN technologies. The petition lists multiple grounds under §103 and requests the Board to institute the trial.
patent · May 21, 2025
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated
· IPR2025-01017
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Corning's 8,642,491 glass‑substrate patent. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue that all 24 claims are either anticipated or obvious. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 20, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01025
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.
patent instituted · May 20, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01025
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. The review will cover claims 1‑9 and is based on anticipation and obviousness grounds over Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
patent instituted · May 20, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01025
Imperative Care secured institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent covering claims 1‑9. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and related references.
patent · May 20, 2025
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC
· IPR2025-01020
Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 2025 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references covering dental isolation mouthpieces.
patent denied · May 20, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
· IPR2025-01023
Samsung responded to the Patent Owner’s request for Director Review, arguing that the Board correctly found no inconsistency in claim positions, that construction was unnecessary, and that expert testimony was explanatory. The Director’s denial of discretionary review under § 325(d) is upheld.
patent · May 20, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
· IPR2025-00996
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR against W&Wsens’s memory patent is challenged by the patent owner, who argues the Board correctly applied discretionary denial factors. The response contends Samsung failed to meet the statutory standard for review and that its arguments are insufficient.
patent · May 20, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
· IPR2025-00996
Samsung and affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a USPTO decision that denied institution of an IPR on their 10,446,700 patent. They contend the Board misapplied the Fintiv factors, created an improper time‑bar, and ignored material examination errors.
patent · May 20, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
· IPR2025-00995
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for a six‑year‑old patent owned by W&Wsens Devices. The petition argues the DI misapplied the Fintiv factors and created an unlawful time‑based bar.
patent denied · May 20, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
· IPR2025-00995
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025‑00995, leaving the original denial of institution in place.
patent denied · May 20, 2025
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-01025
The PTAB denied Imperative Care's petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical's embolism‑treatment patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 31 challenged claims.
patent · May 20, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
· IPR2025-01023
CM HK Limited has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving Samsung’s patents. The Board restricts Samsung’s response to 15 pages, no new evidence, and a five‑day filing window.
patent · May 20, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00988
Samsung has responded to the patent owner’s request for Director Review, asserting that its compliance with a Fintiv stipulation makes the request moot. The Board had already instituted the IPR on the patent, and Samsung seeks denial of the review so the proceeding can continue.
patent · May 20, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
· IPR2025-01023
Samsung petitions the Director to vacate the Board’s institution decision for U.S. Patent 10,852,846, arguing the Board failed to construe a key term and improperly relied on expert testimony. The Patent Owner seeks discretionary denial, asserting the Board’s errors undermine claim‑construction consistency.
patent · May 20, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
· IPR2025-00988
Wilus requests Director Review to overturn the PTAB's institution of Samsung's IPR, alleging Samsung broke its Sotera‑type promise not to use petition prior art in district‑court litigation. The dispute centers on prior‑art duplication across related patents.
patent denied · May 20, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.
· IPR2025-00995
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against W&Wsens’s patent was rejected. The Board affirmed discretionary denial, citing Fintiv factors and settled expectations.
