IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 142 of 189 · 5,670 total
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioners’ requests for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs concerning patents 8,198,686 and 8,907,425.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment’s sur‑reply argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails on both the Walker prior‑art and Kelly obviousness grounds, citing lack of written‑description support and missing disclosures for key claim limitations.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00697 after settling their dispute and dismissing related district‑court litigation.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Statistical analysis of PTAB IPR decisions from 2020‑2025 shows an increase in rulings that find at least one claim unpatentable, driven by both §102 and §103 grounds.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00697 and related proceedings. The settlement was documented via a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice filed in federal court.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
An email notifies the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for two IPRs involving a semiconductor process patent. The patent owner is limited to a 15‑page response with no new evidence, and the Director will decide on the review.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of PACid Technologies' ’771 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on a suite of prior‑art references covering biometric and cryptographic authentication.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of PACid Technologies' ’433 patent on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition emphasizes early filing and strong Fintiv factors to argue for institution.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
Dentsply Sirona has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Osseo Imaging’s 8,498,374 patent covering dental CT densitometry. The petition relies on Arai and Pelc prior‑art references, arguing anticipation and obviousness for all 24 claims.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
Dentsply Sirona has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Osseo Imaging’s 6,381,301 patent covering dental and orthopedic CT densitometry. The challenger asserts the claims are anticipated or obvious over Arai and Pelc references, especially when combined with Cann and Rothman teachings. The petition seeks a finding that claims 1‑8 and 10‑20 are unpatentable.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms filed an IPR petition challenging Mullen Industries' location‑based AR gaming patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references including Jaszlics, Sofer, Ronzani, and Rallison.
USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of PACid Technologies' ’993 patent on user authentication. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §102. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of Mullen Industries' location‑based AR gaming patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging five claims of Mullen Industries' location‑based AR gaming patent (U.S. 9,744,448). The petitioner alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues no discretionary denial applies.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s U.S. Patent 8,907,425 covering semiconductor devices. The petition asserts that claims 1‑15 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Milestone Entertainment’s ’607 patent covering online gaming systems with mandated and variable parameters. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over prior art such as Kelly683, Walker, Paulsen, and Schneier143 and seeks institution of the review.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Court decision.
SeaSpine Holdings Corporation et al. v.Jackson, Roger
SeaSpine petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑implant patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over long‑standing screw‑thread designs disclosed in Kirschman, Higbee, Johnson, Boschert and a 2005 publication.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC
Dentsply Sirona has filed a petition for inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s ‘262 patent covering dental and orthopedic CT densitometry. The petitioner relies on three grounds—Massie, Arai, and Pelc—to argue that claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 are anticipated or obvious.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Milestone Entertainment’s online‑gaming patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition requests institution under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Milestone Entertainment’s U.S. Patent 11,393,279, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art gaming systems. The petition seeks institution of the review under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging Milestone Entertainment’s ’336 gaming patent, asserting obviousness over Kelly683 and over Walker combined with Schneier143. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability for 19 claims.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Court decision.
SeaSpine Holdings Corporation et al. v.Jackson, Roger
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by SeaSpine Holdings against Roger P. Jackson because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,399,873 B2.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review on all four claims of Patent No. 11376493 against Mullen Industries LLC, based on obviousness grounds (103). The Board clarified key claim terms, specifically defining 'physical playfield' broadly to encompass both bounded and unbounded spaces.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms successfully secured the institution of IPRs against Mullen Industries LLC's patents related to Location-based Augmented Reality Systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on obviousness for key claims, particularly regarding the scope of 'physical playfield.'
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms successfully secured institution in this IPR against Mullen Industries' location-based AR patent. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'physical playfield,' favoring the petitioner’s argument that it does not need to be bounded.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard's attempt to invalidate Milestone Entertainment's gaming patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness over prior art references Kelly and Paulsen.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard successfully petitioned to challenge Milestone Entertainment's patent on grounds of obviousness over prior art references like Walker and Kelly. The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable. This sets up a trial proceeding focused on gaming parameter modification systems.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Milestone Entertainment's patent (11335164) covering electronic game systems and prizing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, primarily based on obviousness over prior art references like Kelly.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.