Apple Inc. v. CardWare Inc.

IPR2025-01152

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 72 claims of CardWare’s ’634 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokenization. The petition argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01152
Filing Date
20 June 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-01220

Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.vsCredo Technology Group Ltd.

Marvell has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Credo’s ’111 patent covering high‑speed serial‑link equalization. The challenger relies on a combination of prior‑art references that teach known equalization, preset selection, and training techniques.

patentIPR2025-01491

FedEx Corporation et al.vsVALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.

FedEx has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations' data‑security‑for‑file‑system patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art file‑system and cryptographic references.

patentIPR2024-01468

Ericsson Inc et al.vsHeadwater Partners II LLC

Samsung and Headwater have entered a settlement that resolves their disputes over U.S. Patent No. 9,094,868. They jointly move to terminate the inter partes review as to Samsung and request confidentiality for the settlement.

patentIPR2025-01583

WHOOP, Inc.vsOmni MedSci, Inc.

Apple’s IPR against WHOOP resulted in the Board finding all 23 claims of the wearable health‑monitoring patent unpatentable under obviousness. The decision affirmed the petitioner’s claim construction and rejected the patent owner’s arguments.

patentIPR2025-01498

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.

BOE and Samsung filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.

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