Tesla, Inc. v. Bulletproof Property Management, LLC

IPR2026-00205

Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of the ’457 vehicle‑gear‑selection patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition cites expert testimony and seeks a finding of unpatentability under § 103.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2026-00205
Filing Date
20 January 2026
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-01348

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsAnonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑13 of U.S. Patent 10,572,896, alleging obviousness over Steuer and Neumeier references and lack of written‑description support. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and requests institution of the review.

patentIPR2025-00160

ResMed Corp.vsCleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

ResMed has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of Cleveland Medical Devices’ ’680 patent covering networked PAP therapy systems. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Toge, Kumar, Burton, and Kisner. The Board is asked to institute review.

patentIPR2025-00709

Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC

The PTAB granted institution for Activision Blizzard's IPR against Milestone Entertainment regarding a gaming patent. The challenger successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art related to virtual currency and in-game economies.

patentIPR2024-01330

Geneoscopy, Inc.vsExact Sciences Corporation

The PTAB held that all 20 claims of Exact Sciences' 11,634,781 patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable. Geneoscopy successfully proved the combination of existing fecal screening methods made the claims non‑inventive.

patentIPR2024-00476

Arm Ltd.vsICPillar LLC

ICPillar LLC requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Arm Ltd.’s semiconductor‑device patent. The patent owner argues the panel misapplied Fintiv guidance and should deny institution due to untimely stipulations and parallel district‑court litigation.

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