US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 94 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent instituted · Feb 4, 2025
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
· IPR2025-00524
The PTAB granted institution for the petitioner's IPR challenge against U.S. Patent 12,015,118 B2, covering lithium-ion battery electrode structures. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both anticipation (Ishigaki) and obviousness grounds over multiple prior art references.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Feb 4, 2025
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
· IPR2025-00524
The Director granted review of an IPR decision, vacating the institution finding for one set of grounds (Ishigaki-based) because the Board introduced external evidence, but maintained institution for the remaining claims.
patent · Feb 1, 2025
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
· IPR2025-00404
Ericsson and Nokia have entered a covenant not to sue with Headwater, filing a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00404 covering LTE patent 9,413,502. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
patent terminated or settled · Feb 1, 2025
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
· IPR2025-00404
Ericsson and Nokia settled their IPR with Headwater Partners over patent 9,413,502, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 1, 2025
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2025-00379
IBM and Croga Innovations filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 11,178,104. The parties cite statutory authority to protect the agreement’s commercial details.
patent terminated or settled · Feb 1, 2025
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2025-00379
IBM and Croga Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,178,104. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petition before a trial was instituted.
patent · Feb 1, 2025
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
· IPR2025-00404
Ericsson and Nokia have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Headwater Partners' 9,413,502 patent covering backhaul routing, asserting that earlier patents Ishii and Sfar make the claims obvious. They also argue the Board should not deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
patent instituted · Feb 1, 2025
Ericsson Inc et al. v.HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC
· IPR2025-00404
Ericsson Inc. successfully petitioned to invalidate key claims of Headwater Partners II LLC's patent related to wireless backhaul systems. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable based on obviousness and anticipation over prior art (Ishii and Sfar).
patent terminated or settled · Jan 31, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
· IPR2025-00558
Samsung and Anonymous Media Research Holdings jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00558 before any institution decision, and the Board granted the termination to conserve resources.
patent · Jan 31, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00535
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent. The petition challenges the Board's reliance on "settled expectations" and alleged factual errors. A prior settlement with Meta is highlighted as a factor.
patent denied · Jan 31, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00535
Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies’ 2015 wireless patent was denied. The patent owner’s response emphasizes strong settled expectations and consistency with prior Director decisions, arguing that the discretionary denial is proper under 35 U.S.C. §314.
patent · Jan 31, 2025
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00489
Google has requested Director Review of four IPRs against VirtaMove's software migration patent. The Patent Owner may respond within five business days with a limited brief and no new evidence.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 31, 2025
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
· IPR2025-00523
Zepp Health and the University of Connecticut entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,278,647. The parties jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR before the Board made an institution decision.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 31, 2025
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
· IPR2025-00523
Zepp Health and the University of Connecticut settled their IPR dispute over Patent 10,278,647 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, ending the proceeding before trial.
patent denied · Jan 31, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-00535
The PTAB Director denied Samsung Electronics' request for a Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00535, upholding the earlier decision that the patent was not instituted. The order confirms the institution denial for patent 9,032,039 B2 owned by Mobile Data Technologies.
patent · Jan 31, 2025
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00488
Google has filed a petition for rehearing, challenging the USPTO Director’s discretionary denial of institution for an IPR against VirtaMove’s cloud‑migration patent. The petition asserts the Director exceeded statutory authority and misapplied a "settled expectations" doctrine.
patent · Jan 31, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
· IPR2025-00558
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of the ’911 patent, alleging obviousness over Steuer and Eldering references and lack of written‑description support for video‑data features.
patent · Jan 31, 2025
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00488
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 34 claims of VirtaMove’s ’814 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Schmidt‑479, Tormasov, Calder, and Schmidt‑629) under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Jan 31, 2025
Carvana, LLC v.International Business Machines Corporation
· IPR2025-00564
Carvana petitions the PTAB to invalidate IBM’s ’719 patent covering a dual‑MVC web architecture, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier MVC and JavaScript publications.
patent · Jan 31, 2025
Zepp Health Corporation v.University of Connecticut
· IPR2025-00523
Zepp Health has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 75 claims of U.S. Patent 10,278,647, arguing they are obvious over a 2015 academic paper on wrist‑type photoplethysmography. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
patent · Jan 31, 2025
Google LLC v.VirtaMove, Corp.
· IPR2025-00490
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18 of VirtaMove’s ’058 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Elnozahy and Draves references and lack written‑description support. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent · Jan 31, 2025
LifeVac, LLC v.DCStar Inc.
· IPR2025-00454
LifeVac has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate DCStar’s 11,478,575 patent covering an anti‑choking suction device. The petition relies on Chinese reference Zhongnan and Korean reference Yuchang to argue obviousness of all 17 claims and urges the Board not to deny institution under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
patent denied · Jan 31, 2025
LifeVac, LLC v.DCStar Inc.
· IPR2025-00454
LifeVac, LLC's IPR petition against DCStar Inc. was denied by the PTAB after the Board found insufficient evidence of unpatentability. The decision hinged on a prior art challenge regarding an inventor-originated public disclosure (IDEAR) that predated one key reference.
patent instituted · Jan 31, 2025
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
· IPR2025-00430
Meta Platforms successfully challenged Sterling Computers Corporation's patent for content relevance techniques in a PTAB IPR. The Board found that the patent was obvious over prior art (Rose and Bieganski) and adopted Petitioner’s claim constructions, leading to an institution decision.
