Patent Cases

patent terminated or settled · Dec 30, 2024

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00365

Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to rehear a Director’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00365 covering Mullen’s 2022 patent. They contend the Board ignored the Vidal Memo’s guidance, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed the rules, leaving 92 claims unchallenged in district court.

LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00393

LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,818,449 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).

LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00394

LG Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Maxell’s ’072 video‑editing patent, asserting that five prior‑art references render the claims obvious. The petition argues against discretionary denial and cites a prior Board decision that found similar claims unpatentable.

LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00393

LG Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Maxell’s ’449 patent covering video‑thumbnail navigation. The petition argues that all 16 claims are obvious over prior art references Bryant, Kaplan and Horn, and seeks institution of the review.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00367

Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to invalidate 31 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing no discretionary denial applies.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00368

Google and Samsung have filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 44 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00369

Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and no discretionary denial grounds.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00365

Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over Sheha and Randall references. The petition cites a prior Board institution in an Apple IPR and argues no discretionary denial applies.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00366

Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 15‑41 of Mullen Industries’ ’117 patent covering wireless device location sharing, citing multiple prior‑art combinations under §103.

International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00380

IBM petitions the PTAB to invalidate Croga’s ’780 patent covering virtual‑machine firewalls, arguing the claims are obvious over Delco, Adams, and Dadhia. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

patent denied · Dec 30, 2024

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00339

Tesla petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a digital‑camera patent, arguing they are obvious over existing multi‑sensor camera technologies and that no discretionary denial applies.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00369

The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Samsung against Mullen Industries regarding patent 11246024. The denial affirms the initial decision not to institute trial.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00368

The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. The decision affirms the prior denial of institution across several patent challenges.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00367

The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. This decision affirms the prior denial of institution, meaning trial will not proceed on these patents.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00366

The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries regarding patent 11234117. This decision maintains the prior institution decisions across several related cases.

patent instituted · Dec 30, 2024

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00365

The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. The decision affirms the prior institution decisions across several patents.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00339

Tesla, Inc. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding its digital imaging patents (7916180). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 16 challenged claims based on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001072

Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy

Microsoft Corporation filed an application requesting that Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy be ordered to provide additional security for legal costs of at least EUR 500,000 (alternatively EUR 300,000), on top of the EUR 300,000 security already ordered by the Court. The Court characterized the request as one to modify the existing security by increasing its amount, and after reviewing the arguments, dismissed the application, finding that the new circumstances cited by Microsoft did not warrant a reassessment of the adequacy of the security already ordered.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001071

Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich in a declaration of non-infringement action concerning European Patents Nos. 3 678 321 and 3 611 989. The order addresses Netgear's request to incorporate a license agreement between Huawei and Qualcomm (previously filed as Annex K68 in related infringement proceedings) into the present case file, and the proposal to assign the technically qualified judge Patrice Vidon from a related proceeding. Both parties consented to both requests, and the Rapporteur granted them.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001070

Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited & Google Commerce Limited

In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Defendants (Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited) requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, arguing that the Claimant (Ona Patents SL) lacked the financial resources to cover any potential cost order. The Court granted the request in part, ordering the Claimant to provide security of EUR 500,000 within six weeks of service of the order, finding that the Claimant had failed to substantiate its financial position despite the Defendants presenting credible concerns.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001069

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation

The applicant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, sought review of a security for costs order of EUR 300,000 imposed against it in its infringement action against Microsoft Corporation, requesting reduction to EUR 100,000 based on its subsequent reduction of damages claimed. The Court of First Instance dismissed the application, holding that the reduction in damages claimed was immaterial to the value of the proceedings, which reflects the claimant's objective interest at the time of filing, and that the applicant's other arguments constituted a critique of the original order that could only be raised on appeal.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001068

Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited

This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning a request by Syngenta to be relieved from translating Exhibit FF25 (filed in German) attached to its Statement of response in appeal proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 152 073. Sumi Agro, the appellant, left the matter to the discretion of the Court. The judge-rapporteur held that no translation of Exhibit FF25 was necessary.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001067

Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH, and Apple Retail France EURL

The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 requested that the claimant, Ona Patents SL, provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Düsseldorf Local Division found the request well-founded, holding that the claimant, a recently founded entity with minimal share capital and no apparent financial reserves, failed to substantiate its ability to bear potential costs. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 500,000 within six weeks, rejecting the defendants' request for EUR 1.012 million and a one-week deadline.

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

Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s enzyme patent, arguing the claims lack adequate written description and enablement. The reply emphasizes functional language and the impossibility of testing the claimed 1,059+ PH20 variants.

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

Merck defends its PH20 enzyme patent in a PTAB Director Review proceeding, arguing that the claims satisfy §112 written description and enablement and that Halozyme's claim‑construction objections are unfounded. The petitioner also contends that Fintiv factors do not justify discretionary denial.

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

Halozyme seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review of its ’035 enzyme patent. The petition contends the Board mis‑interpreted claim language and mis‑applied eligibility standards, and argues that Fintiv factors demand denial of institution.

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

Halozyme has sought a Director Review of the PGR, and Merck has 5 business days to file a brief response without new evidence.

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