Meta Platforms, Inc. v. SitNet, LLC

IPR2026-00112

Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitNet’s ’463 patent covering situational networks, asserting that all 12 claims are obvious over prior‑art combinations of location‑based social networking technologies.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2026-00112
Filing Date
11 October 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentPGR2024-00050

Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al.vsColumbia Insurance Company et al.

The PTAB found 103 of the 105 claims of Simpson Strong‑Tie’s fire‑wall hanger patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of Yamaguchi, Bundy, Adams and Gilb ’416 references. Claims 38 and 91 were left intact. The Board adopted petitioner‑proposed claim constructions.

patentIPR2024-01133

BOE Technology Group Co., LTDvsOptronic Sciences, LLC

BOE Technology Group Co., LTD successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Optronic Sciences, LLC regarding display technology patents. The Board granted institution after a favorable claim construction of 'auxiliary electrode,' finding the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key grounds.

patentIPR2025-01401

Google LLCvsTelcom Ventures LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 11 claims of Telcom Ventures' mobile‑payment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.

patentIPR2026-00229

Tesla, Inc.vsBulletproof Property Management, LLC

Tesla files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of a vehicle gear‑selection patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patentIPR2024-01163

Tommy John, Inc.vsPakage Apparel, Inc.

Tommy John, Inc. challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,834,974 held by Pakage Apparel, Inc., asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Kitsch and Brocks. The petitioner argues that combining elements from these references in the men's underwear/genital support garment field renders all challenged claims unpatentable.

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