US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 97 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
· IPR2025-00188
Cisco’s request for rehearing of the Director Review decision in IPR2025-00188 was denied, maintaining the denial of institution of the inter partes review against patent 8,982,691.
patent denied
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
· IPR2025-00114
The USPTO denied Abbott Laboratories’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, leaving Miracor Medical’s patent 11,572,879 in place.
patent
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
· IPR2025-00114
Abbott Laboratories submits a response urging the PTAB Director to deny Miracor Medical’s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00114. The petitioner argues the Board’s findings on particularity, claim construction, word count, and Fintiv factors were proper and that the request would be inefficient.
patent
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
· IPR2025-00157
ResMed filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its PAP device patent. The petitioner contends the Board misapplied General Plastic, contrary to recent Director guidance. The request emphasizes different prior art and the need for efficient review of related patents.
patent
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
· IPR2025-00157
ResMed seeks a PTAB waiver of the 30‑day deadline to request Director Review after the Board denied institution of its IPR, citing a conflicting Director decision and the need for consistency across related petitions.
patent
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00223
The USPTO granted AMD and Pensando’s request for rehearing, vacated the earlier discretionary denial of institution, and sent the IPR back to the Board for a standard institution decision.
patent
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
· IPR2025-00109
FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, contending that all Fintiv factors favor denial due to overlapping litigation and ethical issues. The petition argues the Board misapplied the discretionary denial standards.
patent
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00148
Fullthrottle Technologies argues that Rocket Media’s IPR petition for claims 1‑20 of U.S. Patent 11,556,947 fails because the cited prior art lacks key limitations and there is no motivation to combine the references. The response also seeks discretionary denial under § 314(a) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
patent denied
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
· IPR2025-00109
The PTAB denied Jumio's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the facial‑recognition patent owned by FaceTec, leaving the institution standing.
patent
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00134
Maxell’s sur‑reply argues TCL’s IPR petition re‑uses prior art, shows no material error, and fails claim‑construction arguments, urging the PTAB to deny institution.
patent
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
· IPR2025-00109
Jumio challenges the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against FaceTec’s biometric authentication patent. FaceTec’s counsel argues the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that parallel litigation does not warrant reversal. The response seeks denial of the petition for review.
patent denied
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
· IPR2025-00108
The PTAB denied Jumio Corp.’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving FaceTec’s patent 11,693,938. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
patent
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
· IPR2025-00145
The Board initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR concerning HydraFacial's facial treatment device patent after the ITC found the claims valid and commercially successful. The proceeding is stayed pending the Director's opinion.
patent instituted
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
· IPR2025-00102
The PTAB granted a sua sponte Director review of several IPRs involving LifeScan and TikTok after rejecting the patent owner’s motion to terminate on RPI and sovereign‑person grounds. The IPRs are stayed pending the Director’s opinion.
patent instituted
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
· IPR2025-00106
Jumio challenges FaceTec's biometric patent in IPR2025-00106. The petitioner argues the PTAB correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that no discretionary denial applies. The Board’s institution decision remains in effect pending director review.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
· IPR2025-00101
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial of its IPR was rejected, leaving the Board’s earlier decision intact. The Patent Owner contended the petitioner introduced new arguments and failed to provide claim constructions, justifying the denial.
patent
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00141
Skechers petitions the PTAB to invalidate Nike's 8,266,749 footwear knitting patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art knitting references. The petition seeks cancellation of 19 claims.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
· IPR2025-00101
Samsung Electronics seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute inter partes review of claims 18‑21 of its communication‑service device patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred in claim construction and denied due‑process rights by refusing a preliminary reply.
patent all challenged claims upheld
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
· IPR2025-00141
Nike's footwear knitting patent survived Skechers' IPR challenge. The Board found no unpatentable claims after rejecting the obviousness arguments based on Reed and Nishida references.
patent terminated or settled
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2025-00100
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR, accompanied by a confidential settlement agreement. The PTAB granted the termination and ordered the settlement to be kept confidential.
patent
YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00099
Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) filed an authorized response to Micron’s Director Review request, arguing the PTAB correctly upheld YMTC’s eligibility to pursue IPRs and rejected Micron’s Return Mail arguments. The Board is urged to deny Micron’s request for discretionary denial.
patent denied
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
· IPR2025-00231
The USPTO Director denied Rode Microphones' request to review the vacated institution decision in IPR2025-00231, keeping the proceeding dismissed.
patent
Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00098
Micron has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against YMTC, arguing the Chinese state‑owned firm is not a “person” under 35 U.S.C. §311 and that the Board should have exercised discretionary denial under §314(a).
patent
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
· IPR2025-00139
U.S. Well Services seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB Board’s decision to institute an IPR on its hydraulic fracturing patent, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors.
