Patent Cases

Terumo BCT argues that the IPR on Haemonetics’ blood‑apheresis patent should remain instituted, emphasizing that the disputed “controller” term is undisputed and that prior‑art devices disclose it.

Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation

Haemonetics Corp. seeks Director review to vacate the institution of an IPR filed by Terumo BCT over its plasma‑apheresis patent. The Owner argues the petitioner’s inconsistent claim‑construction positions and failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) warrant denial. The request cites recent Director precedents to support vacatur.

BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.

patent denied · Apr 8, 2025

BPI Labs requests Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Eli Lilly’s tirzepatide patent (US 9,474,780). The petitioner argues the denial misapplies § 325(d), ignores material prosecution errors, and violates APA rulemaking requirements. Consistency with a related pending IPR is also urged.

BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.

patent denied · Apr 8, 2025

The USPTO denied BPI Labs’ request for director review of the decision that had refused to institute IPR 2025-01346 against Eli Lilly’s patent 9,474,780. The original denial of institution remains in effect.

BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.

Eli Lilly successfully defended its tirzepatide patent after the PTAB denied BPI Labs' request for Director Review of the institution denial, citing strong settled expectations and proper exercise of discretion.

Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation

Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines five grounds based on Lavender and other patents.

Amazon.com Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC

· IPR2025-01379

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VB Assets’ U.S. Patent 10,755,699, which covers a method for generating natural‑language responses adapted to a user’s manner of speaking. The petition alleges obviousness over three prior‑art references—Kennewick, Cooper, and Matsuda—under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-01373

Red Hat has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all five claims of Competitive Access Systems’ residential gateway patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on Challener, Kotzin, Ades, and Xin to demonstrate lack of novelty.

BPI Labs, LLC et al. v.Eli Lilly & Co.

BPI Labs has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Eli Lilly’s 9,474,780 patent covering GLP‑1/GIP co‑agonist peptides. The petition relies on obviousness over three prior‑art references (Alsina‑Fernandez, DiMarchi, Lau). No secondary considerations are alleged.

patent instituted · Apr 8, 2025

Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-01372

Red Hat has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Competitive Access Systems' broadband communications device patent, asserting obviousness over Kotzin and Challener references.

Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation

patent remanded · Apr 8, 2025

The USPTO Board granted institution for IPR2025-01374, allowing the petitioner to proceed to trial. The decision was based on the petitioner meeting the non-discretionary standard of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

UCB Pharma GMBH v.The Controller of Patents and Designs

Calcutta High Court · 145554557

UCB Pharma appealed an order refusing to proceed with its patent application for a solid dispersion formulation of Rotigotine. The court found that the Controller had caused inordinate delays and violated statutory timelines, compounded by citing new prior art documents at the hearing without proper notification. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

patent LITIGATION · Apr 7, 2025

Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000815

Dainese S.p.A., the claimant in a patent infringement action concerning EP'117 and EP'364, applied for leave to limit its claims under Rule 263.3 RoP after the EPO Board of Appeal issued a negative opinion on EP'117, seeking to discontinue claims related to EP'117 while maintaining those regarding EP'364. The defendants argued the application should be treated as a partial withdrawal under Rule 265 RoP, entitling them to cost reimbursement. The Milan Local Division held that Rule 263.3 RoP governs the limitation of claims, granted Dainese leave to limit its claims, rejected the request for partial reimbursement of court fees, and postponed the costs decision to the main proceedings.

patent LITIGATION · Apr 7, 2025

Dainese S.p.A. v.S.L. Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l.

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000814

Dainese S.p.A., the claimant in a patent infringement action concerning two European patents (EP'364 and EP'117), filed an application under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its claims by withdrawing all arguments related to EP'117 following an adverse EPO Board of Appeal opinion, while maintaining claims regarding EP'364. The defendants opposed, arguing the application should be treated as a partial withdrawal under Rule 265 RoP and sought cost decisions. The Milan Local Division granted leave to limit the claims under Rule 263.3 RoP, rejected the request for partial reimbursement of court fees, and postponed the costs decision to the main proceedings.

Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01103

Apple and Advanced Coding Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,230,101 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

patent · Apr 6, 2025

Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.

· IPR2025-01087

Orca Security and Wiz have jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, citing statutory protections. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the IPR file and limit disclosure to the parties and the Board.

patent · Apr 6, 2025

Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.

· IPR2025-01085

Orca Security and Wiz have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The parties argue that public disclosure would harm their business interests.

Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.

· IPR2025-01087

Orca Security and Wiz settled their inter partes review dispute and filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding. The PTAB is expected to grant termination as no final written decision has been issued.

Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.

· IPR2025-01085

Orca Security and Wiz have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,936,693. The parties jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, and the Board is asked to grant the termination.

Orca Security Ltd. v.Wiz, Inc.

· IPR2025-01087

Orca Security and Wiz settled their inter partes review dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317. The settlement agreement is kept confidential per the Board’s order.