US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 9 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent denied · Dec 8, 2025
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
· PGR2025-00075
The PTAB denied OneSource Solutions’ request for director review of its denied PGR petition against Hippocratic AI’s U.S. Patent 12,142,371. The Board found the request failed to meet the statutory standards for reversal.
patent · Dec 8, 2025
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
· PGR2025-00075
OSSI Corporation filed a motion to correct procedural defects in its petition against Hippocratic AI's patent, seeking Board approval to submit a compliant filing.
patent · Dec 8, 2025
Google LLC et al. v.ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC
· IPR2025-01405
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of a video‑playlist patent, arguing they are obvious over earlier patents and a programming textbook. The petition cites Hedinsson, Ford, and Kostello as the prior art basis.
patent · Dec 8, 2025
Google LLC et al. v.ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC
· IPR2025-01403
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 33 claims of ART Research’s ’840 patent, which covers video annotation and indexing. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Datar, Zhou, Gupta, Smith, Friedlander, and Mouilleseaux.
patent · Dec 8, 2025
Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01409
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of Telcom Ventures' NFC‑based mobile payment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial and requests institution of the review.
patent denied · Dec 8, 2025
OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.
· PGR2025-00075
The PTAB denied institution of the Post-Grant Review (PGR) in a dispute involving Hippocratic AI's patent 12142371, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the necessary likelihood of prevailing standard.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 6, 2025
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01123
Google withdrew its IPR petition against SoundClear's patent, and the Board terminated the proceeding. No claims were instituted or decided.
patent · Dec 6, 2025
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-01123
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑5 of SoundClear’s voice‑content control patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over the Ocampo and Yi references. The petition requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.
patent · Dec 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00999
Google LLC filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ ’303 patent. The petitioner alleges procedural errors, APA violations, and improper reliance on discretionary factors. Google seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the trial.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 5, 2025
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00992
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00992 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,352,020.
patent · Dec 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00999
Google’s petition for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ video‑coding patent was met with a detailed response from the patent owner asserting the denial was proper and that the APA challenges lack merit.
patent · Dec 5, 2025
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00992
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to terminate the IPR. The request emphasizes the agreement’s sensitive business terms.
patent denied · Dec 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00998
The PTAB denied Google’s request for director review of the denial of institution in IPR2025-00998 concerning patent 8,090,025. The decision upholds the earlier institution denial against Advanced Coding Technologies.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 5, 2025
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
· IPR2025-00992
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
patent · Dec 5, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00991
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑10 of U.S. Patent 8,090,025, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art video‑coding references. The petition relies on Mualla, Shirani, Saito, Stockhammer, and Shimizu to demonstrate lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Dec 5, 2025
Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00999
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of U.S. Patent 9,986,303, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier scalable video‑coding disclosures (Demircin, Chen, Karczewicz). The petition seeks institution of the review and argues that the prior art was not considered during prosecution.
patent · Dec 4, 2025
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00815
ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of Align Technology’s orthodontic treatment‑planning patent (US 10,524,879), alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the round‑tripping collision‑avoidance technique is well‑known.
patent instituted · Dec 4, 2025
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00816
ClearCorrect Operating challenged Align Technology's dental treatment planning patent (11,369,456 B2) before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Ground 1, based on obviousness over Chishti-511, Chishti-876, and Sachdeva.
patent denied · Dec 4, 2025
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.
· IPR2025-00815
ClearCorrect Operating lost its IPR challenge against Align Technology's '879 patent in a PTAB decision focused on obviousness. The Board rejected the petitioner’s argument that combining prior art references would render the claims obvious, upholding the validity of the challenged technology in orthodontics.
patent · Dec 3, 2025
Transcend Information Inc. v.Truesight Communications LLC
· IPR2025-00723
Transcend Information has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Truesight Communications' 2015 patent on secure SD‑card content transfer, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution despite related Texas litigation.
patent · Dec 2, 2025
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00500
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Micron’s 10,475,737 flash‑memory patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations analysis and violated APA due‑process rules.
patent · Dec 2, 2025
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00500
Micron Technology opposes Yangtze Memory’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on Micron’s 3D NAND patent. The response argues the petitioner’s claims of no parallel litigation and examiner error are unsupported and that procedural challenges were waived.
patent denied · Dec 2, 2025
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. et al. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00500
The USPTO Director denied Yangtze Memory's request for Director Review of the PTAB's denial of institution in four IPRs, including the case involving Micron's patent 10,475,737.
patent · Dec 2, 2025
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00486
AMD and Pensando’s IPR petition targeting XtreamEdge’s modular data‑processing patent is met with a robust preliminary response arguing that the cited prior art does not disclose key claim limitations, prompting a request for discretionary denial of institution.
