Intel Corporation v. Proxense, LLC

IPR2025-00329

Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Proxense’s ’672 patent covering wireless time‑slot allocation, arguing the claims are obvious over public standards and prior‑art publications.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00329
Filing Date
23 December 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-01435

Tempus AI, Inc.vsGuardant Health Inc.

Guardant Health settled its digital sequencing patent dispute with Foundation Medicine for $25 million plus royalties, granting a non‑exclusive license and dismissing all related litigation.

patentIPR2025-01049

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al.vsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC

Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies have jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b), separating it from the IPR file for patent 11,334,918.

patentIPR2024-01268

3Shape A/S et al.vsMedit Corporation et al.

Petitioners, including 3Shape A/S, have filed an IPR challenging the validity of Medit Corporation's patent claims related to 3D scanning and stitching technology. The central argument asserts that the claimed invention is obvious over prior art references Kriveshko and Zhang when combining global motion optimization techniques. This challenges the scope of a major patent in the computer vision market.

patentIPR2024-01447

Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al.vsGodo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all four claims of U.S. Patent 8,405,134, which covers MRAM technology. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai, and Parkin, and challenges any discretionary denial of institution.

patentIPR2025-01268

Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al.vsRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim petitions the PTAB to invalidate Regeneron’s anti‑VEGF eye‑drug patent, asserting that the Dix ’226 reference anticipates all challenged claims and that the patent owner has not shown any criticality for the claimed formulation parameters.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call