Products
AI AGENTS
INTELLIGENCE SUITE
API, MCP & INTEGRATION
Solutions
INDUSTRIES
USE CASES
Pricing
Resources
EXPLORE
ENGAGE
SUPPORT & SERVICES
About
Patsnap Eureka Platform
IP Search Agents
IP Drafting Agents
Engineering Agents
Find Solutions with TRIZ
Life Sciences Agents
SAR Data Extraction
Materials Agents
SEP Agents
Patsnap Eureka Desktop
BetaAnalytics
IP IntelligenceHiro for Analytics
Synapse
Biopharma IntelligenceBio
Biosequence Search and AnalysisChemical
Chemical Structure Search and AnalysisProfessional Services
Open Platform
Developer Center
Customer Stories
Newsroom
Blog
2026 R&D Benchmark Report
Glossary
Free tools
NEWWebinars & Training
User Community
R&D Benchmark Calculator
Trust and Security
PatentBench
NEWLLM
Help center
Careers
The form could not load. Please try again or email our team.
[email protected]No credit card required
Already have an account? Log In
To start using Patsnap Eureka, click the verification button in the email we sent to .
This helps keep your account secure.
Haven't received it? Check your spam folder.
Litigation | Report Royal J. O'Brien v. Microsoft (22-2140) — docket record, asserted patents, parties and counsel.
Litigation | Report Web 2.0 Technologies et al. v. Workzone (1:23-cv-00345) — docket record, asserted patents, parties and counsel.
Litigation | Report KT Imaging USA v. Hangzhou Hikvision Digitial Technology Co. et al. (6:22-cv-01026) — docket record, asserted patents, parties and counsel.
Litigation | Report Personalized Media Communication v. Apple (23-230) — docket record, asserted patents, parties and counsel.
Litigation | Report American Inventor Tech v. Google (6:22-cv-01221) — docket record, asserted patents, parties and counsel.
Litigation | Report Kihomac v. Meosphere et al. (1:22-cv-00160) — docket record, asserted patents, parties and counsel.
Litigation | Report Analysis of American Inventor Tech v. Google: Patent Dismissal — case overview, legal analysis, key takeaways, and FTO implications for IP professionals. Powered by PatSnap Eureka.
Litigation | Report GenghisComm Holdings v. Asustek Computer (2:22-cv-00066) — docket record, asserted patents, parties and counsel.
Litigation | Report Stasit v. Apple Computer (6:23-cv-00524) — docket record, asserted patents, parties and counsel.
Litigation | Report Teleputers v. Analog Devices (6:23-cv-00755) — docket record, asserted patents, parties and counsel.
Litigation | Report Azurity Pharmaceuticals v. Aurobindo Pharma et al. (1:21-cv-01707) — docket record, asserted patents, parties and counsel.
Litigation | Report Analysis of Landmark Graphics Corp. – CA2939218A1 Patent Appeal — case overview, legal analysis, key takeaways, and FTO implications for IP professionals. Powered by PatSnap Eureka.
Litigation | Report Cedar Lane Technologies v. Vantage Robotics (1:23-cv-00336) — docket record, asserted patents, parties and counsel.
Litigation | Report In Re: Enovate Medical v. Katherine K. Vidal (22-1874) — docket record, asserted patents, parties and counsel.
Litigation | Report R2 Solutions v. Hilton Domestic Operating Company (3:22-cv-02761) — docket record, asserted patents, parties and counsel.