US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 96 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01249
Apple prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent, finding 12 of the 23 claims unpatentable while the remaining claims survived.
patent · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01249
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent, arguing that all asserted claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson and Mannheimer.
patent · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01250
Samsung (on behalf of Apple) petitions the PTAB to invalidate Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent covering wearable optical health monitors. The petition asserts obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references and requests that the trial be instituted.
patent · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01249
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition relies on a combination of five prior‑art references to argue obviousness of all 23 claims. The case is pending institution.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01249
Apple (as petitioner) prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent, with the PTAB finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer. The decision hinges on pulse‑rate and signal‑to‑noise teachings in the prior art.
patent · May 8, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01239
Apple Inc. filed a motion to dismiss its IPR petition against Telcom Ventures' U.S. Patent 12,028,793, arguing that the Board has not yet ruled on institution and that proceeding would waste resources. The motion seeks pre‑institution dismissal while other related IPRs remain active in parallel litigation.
patent · May 8, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01236
Apple filed a motion to dismiss its IPR against Telcom Ventures’ U.S. Patent 11,770,756, arguing that the case is pre‑institution and that dismissal will conserve resources. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
patent · May 8, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01232
Apple filed a motion to dismiss its IPR petition against Telcom Ventures' 9,462,411 patent, citing good cause and the early stage of the proceeding. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
patent terminated or settled · May 8, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01267
BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,126,025 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR proceeding.
patent · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01249
Court decision.
patent · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· PGR2025-00063
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent (12,268,475) on obviousness grounds, relying on prior art such as Lisogurski, Tran, LeBoeuf and Carlson.
patent · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· PGR2025-00064
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed a PGR seeking to invalidate claim 7 of Omni MedSci’s 12,193,790 patent, arguing obviousness over Lisogurski and Carlson and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs.
patent · May 8, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01376
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian Memory Systems’ ’995 patent covering flash‑memory address translation. The petition relies on Reiter, SCSI standards, Sinclair‑367 and Yamada to argue obviousness of 23 claims.
patent · May 8, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01378
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Radian’s ’657 patent covering flash memory address translation, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art flash controllers and SCSI standards.
patent · May 8, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Radian Memory Systems LLC
· IPR2025-01377
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Radian’s ’656 flash‑memory controller patent, asserting obviousness over Reiter, SCSI standards and other prior art. The petition outlines five statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103. The proceeding is currently at the petition stage.
patent · May 8, 2025
Regions Bank v.United Services Automobile Association
· IPR2025-01356
Regions Bank has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of US Patent 12,211,095, which covers mobile check‑deposit functionality. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references spanning mobile imaging, APIs, and OCR. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
patent · May 8, 2025
Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.
· IPR2025-01382
Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 of Competitive Access Systems’ ’641 patent covering residential bandwidth‑aggregation gateways, arguing the claims are obvious over two prior‑art references.
patent · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01254
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs.
patent · May 8, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC
· IPR2025-01352
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 42 of Dialect’s ’659 patent, asserting lack of written description support and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review to invalidate the claim.
patent · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01252
Samsung and co‑petitioners seek an IPR of Omni MedSci’s ’455 wearable health‑monitoring patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art and that earlier IPR findings estop re‑litigation. They request the Board institute the proceeding.
patent · May 8, 2025
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC
· IPR2025-01267
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Paneltouch Technologies' 11,126,025 patent covering in‑cell LCD touch panels, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Kim, Kim II and Yoshida.
patent · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01253
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition against Omni MedSci’s U.S. Patent 12,193,790, asserting that claim 7 is obvious over Lisogurski and Carlson references and should be barred by collateral estoppel.
patent · May 8, 2025
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.
· IPR2025-01250
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition against Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent, asserting that the dependent claims are obvious over prior art references Lisogurski, Carlson and Tam. They seek institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability under §103.
patent · May 8, 2025
Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
· IPR2025-01239
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’793 patent, which covers adaptive NFC‑based payment functions. The petition relies on obviousness arguments over a combination of prior‑art patents and the ISO‑14443 standard.
