US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 94 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
· IPR2025-00196
Midas Green Technologies seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision instituting an IPR on its immersion‑cooling patent, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and recent case law.
patent denied
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00197
The PTAB denied Samsung Display’s petition to review Pictiva’s ‘547 patent, finding no compelling unpatentability arguments and applying pre‑AIA §102(b) to deem the Igarashi reference prior art.
patent
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00218
Tesla has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction of its LTE signaling patent, arguing the Board relied on invented drawings rather than the specification. The petition seeks reversal of the decision and institution of the trial under a proper construction.
patent denied
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00218
Tesla’s request for Director Review of IPR2025-00218 was denied. The Board affirmed its original claim construction, finding the patent’s language requires a one-to-one correspondence between bits and time intervals, and rejected Tesla’s untimely new arguments.
patent
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2025-00207
Arm Ltd filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial that blocked an IPR on its multicore processor patent (U.S. 8,984,228). The petition cites the settlement of related litigation and prior Board findings that identical claims were invalid over the Sinharoy reference.
patent
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00223
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of three IPRs after the patent owner claimed the petitioners breached a Sotera stipulation by litigating overlapping invalidity arguments in district court. The proceedings are stayed pending a decision on a motion to vacate the institution.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00227
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to rehear the Director's discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00227, arguing the denial exceeds statutory authority and misapplies the "settled expectations" doctrine.
patent
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00223
AMD and Pensando have filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR on their FPGA patent. They contend that recent court delays and the cancellation of a Markman hearing render the Board's discretionary denial inappropriate.
patent denied
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
· IPR2025-00214
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' petition for post‑grant review of Vervain's NAND‑flash storage patent, finding no sufficient evidence of unpatentability under §§ 101, 103, and 112. No claim constructions were required, and the petition was dismissed without instituting a trial.
patent denied
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
· IPR2025-00215
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ petition for post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger failed to meet the ‘more likely than not’ burden. The Board upheld the patent’s claims across all seven challenged claims.
patent
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
· IPR2025-00214
Phison Electronics Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition to invalidate Vervain’s U.S. Patent No. 11,830,546 covering a hybrid SLC‑MLC NAND flash system. The petition alleges lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, insufficient written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent denied
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
· IPR2025-00213
The PTAB denied Phison's post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the challenger had not shown a more‑likely‑than‑not chance of unpatentability for any of the seven claims.
patent denied
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
· IPR2025-00213
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ request to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s ’612 NAND‑flash memory patent, finding the challenger’s unpatentability arguments unpersuasive.
patent
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
· IPR2025-00213
Phison Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash memory patent. The petition alleges lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, insufficient written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
patent denied
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc. v.Oncoustics Inc.
· IPR2025-00242
Oncoustics successfully defended the Board’s decision to deny institution of an IPR filed by Precision Cancer Technologies. The patent owner showed the petitioner failed to prove the primary reference disclosed a single static set of raw RF ultrasound data, and the petitioner’s new arguments were untimely.
patent
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2025-00207
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The Board is asked to restrict access to the agreement to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
patent
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
· IPR2025-00194
DeepSig rebuts Digital Global Systems’ attempt to introduce new claim‑construction arguments in a PTAB Director Review request, arguing the Board’s original claim interpretations were correct and that instituting a dependent claim without an unpatentable independent claim is legally untenable.
patent terminated or settled
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
· IPR2025-00263
Kyocera and Koki Holdings settled their dispute over four industrial‑tool patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the pending IPRs and keep the settlement confidential.
patent
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2025-00207
Arm Ltd petitions the PTAB Director to vacate a discretionary denial and institute an IPR on its multicore processor patent after the related Texas lawsuit was settled and dismissed.
patent terminated or settled
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
· IPR2025-00202
Liberty Mutual and Intellectual Ventures reached a settlement that terminated three inter partes review proceedings before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the parties' motions to dismiss and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
· IPR2025-00188
Cisco’s IPR against WSOU’s ’691 patent was instituted, but the patent owner seeks Director Review, alleging the Panel ignored discretionary‑denial briefing and misapplied the Sotera stipulation analysis. The request aims to have the institution decision vacated.
patent
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00120
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response to TCL's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,375,341, arguing that the petitioner’s obviousness ground based on the Acharya reference fails to disclose key claim elements and that discretionary factors favor denying institution.
patent
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00134
Maxell seeks denial of TCL’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,650,780, arguing the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success, fails statutory particularity, and repeats arguments already considered by the USPTO.
patent terminated or settled
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
· IPR2025-00195
Garmin and Cardiacsense have jointly moved to terminate their Inter Partes Review over U.S. Patent 7,980,998 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory authority.
