Patent Cases

Walmart Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00809

Walmart has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Security Technology’s ’402 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition presents two grounds, each covering claims 1‑19, and argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.

Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00807

Henri Daussi, LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 14 claims of U.S. Patent 9,398,791 covering an oblong diamond cut, citing multiple prior‑art references for lack of novelty and obviousness.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC

· IPR2025-00780

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 14 claims of GenghisComm’s ’842 OFDM patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that Fintiv factors favor institution.

patent instituted · Mar 28, 2025

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00778

Liberty Energy petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services' 11,959,533 patent covering multi‑plunger hydraulic fracturing pumps. The petition asserts that all 25 claims are obvious under §103, relying on a series of prior‑art combinations and argues that institution is proper under the Fintiv and Becton factors.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00039

Merck Sharp & Dohme successfully challenged Halozyme's patent claims in a PGR proceeding, focusing on enablement and obviousness. The Board adopted a functional claim construction requiring 'modified PH20 polypeptide' to exhibit hyaluronidase activity.

patent LITIGATION · Mar 27, 2025

DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.Cloudflare Inc.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000844

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 479 680. The plaintiffs (DISH Technologies and Sling TV) had filed a subsidiary application under R. 191 Alt. 2 RoP against third party Cloudflare Inc. for transmission of information, and then sought a preliminary finding that the requested information was not decisive. The court held that such a preliminary finding request is inadmissible, but interpreted the plaintiffs' conditional withdrawal as making the R. 191 application itself conditional on the information being decisive, and stayed the decision on the information request and related applications.

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00755

USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,070,530, leading to a joint motion that terminated the IPR proceeding before it was instituted.

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00755

USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00755 after resolving their dispute in district court, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00752

USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have resolved their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,044,689 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The district‑court case involving the same patent was also dismissed.

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00752

USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial, resulting in a Board‑ordered termination of IPR2025-00752 covering patent 10,044,689.

Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.

Alpinestars and Dainese have executed a settlement that ends all pending cross‑border patent disputes over airbag technology for motorcyclists. The agreement includes dismissal of lawsuits, withdrawal of oppositions, and a mutual non‑challenge pledge.

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00754

USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00754 after settling their dispute, including dismissal of related district‑court litigation.

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00754

USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board terminated the proceeding on the parties' joint motion.

Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.

This exhibit is a certified English translation of the settlement agreement between Dainese and Alpinestars dated Oct. 5, 2020, filed in IPR2025‑00750. It confirms the authenticity of the settlement for the Board’s record.

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00755

USAA has filed an IPR petition challenging PACid’s ’530 patent on multiple obviousness grounds, citing Immega, Day, Tomko, Mardikar‑318, Chhabra and Duffy prior art. The petition argues for institution and cites Fintiv factors.

Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.

Alpinestars has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Dainese’s U.S. Patent 12,012,065, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00752

USAA Federal Savings Bank petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against PACid Technologies' 2018 patent covering biometric user authentication, asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim analyses and argues that institutional factors strongly favor proceeding.

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00754

USAA Federal Savings Bank petitions the PTAB to invalidate PACid Technologies' biometric authentication patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition relies on Immega‑Day‑Tomko, Mardikar‑318/Chhabra, and Duffy teachings and argues that institution is warranted under the Fintiv framework.

patent denied · Mar 27, 2025

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00744

Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of Mullen Industries’ AR video‑game patent, asserting obviousness over earlier AR references. The petition seeks institution and argues no discretionary denial applies.

Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.

patent denied · Mar 27, 2025

Alpinestars S.p.A et al.'s IPR challenge against Dainese's inflatable safety device patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, despite arguments regarding obviousness over prior art combinations.

Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.