LG Electronics Inc. et al. v. Maxell, LTD.

IPR2025-00394

LG Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Maxell’s ’072 video‑editing patent, asserting that five prior‑art references render the claims obvious. The petition argues against discretionary denial and cites a prior Board decision that found similar claims unpatentable.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00394
Filing Date
30 December 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00543

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMobile Data Technologies LLC

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 21 claims of Mobile Data Technologies’ ’578 patent covering mobile content‑sharing functionality. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial.

patentIPR2025-01384

MWE Investments, LLC et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.

MWE Investments, Harbor Freight Tools, and Generac, together with Champion Power Equipment, filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement (Exhibit 1300) confidential and separate from the IPR file. The request cites statutory confidentiality provisions.

patentIPR2026-00054

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLCvsAdeia Media Holdings Inc.

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 8, 13‑15 of U.S. Patent 9,762,639, alleging obviousness over multiple streaming‑media references such as Lewis, Pyle, Barraclough and Jain.

patentIPR2024-00536

NJOY, LLC et al.vsJUUL Labs, Inc.

The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition for NJOY against JUUL Labs, finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board found insufficient motivation or reasonable expectation of success in combining various prior art references across multiple claims.

patentIPR2025-01598

Medtronic, Inc.vsMoskowitz Family LLC

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01598, allowing Medtronic to challenge Moskowitz Family LLC's patent 9005293 at the merits stage.

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