Patent Cases

iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

The PTAB denied iRhythm’s petition to institute an IPR against Welch Allyn’s cardiac‑monitor patent. Welch Allyn’s counsel filed an authorized response asserting the Director’s holistic assessment was proper and that the petitioner offered no new evidence. The request for review is therefore expected to be denied.

iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

The USPTO Director denied iRhythm's request for a rehearing of the institution decision in its IPR against Welch Allyn's cardiac monitoring patent. The denial leaves the original institution denial intact.

iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

The PTAB denied iRhythm's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00378 and related cases, keeping Welch Allyn's patent intact. The decision rests on the Board's discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

iRhythm challenges the PTAB Acting Director’s denial of five IPR petitions on the ground that a newly issued ‘settled expectations’ rule was applied retroactively. The company argues the rule conflicts with precedent and statutory limits, and would burden the PTAB and stifle innovation.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Verizon and its partners seek Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against KT Corp.’s 942 patent. They argue the denial violated due process and misapplied Fintiv factors, urging the Board to institute the review.

iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

iRhythm has requested Director Review of Welch Allyn’s patent 8,214,007 in IPR2025-00377. The patent owner may file a brief response limited to the raised issues within five days, with no new evidence allowed.

iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

The Board acknowledged receipt of Director Review requests for several IPRs, including IPR2025‑00378, and instructed the patent owner to file a limited response within five business days. No new evidence may be submitted.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

The Board denied Verizon Wireless and co‑petitioners’ request for Director Review of an institution denial, finding no statutory basis and rejecting new arguments. The institution denial based on a holistic Fintiv analysis therefore stands.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

The PTAB denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in multiple IPRs, including the Verizon Wireless challenge to Pegasus Wireless’s patent. The Board affirmed its original decision not to institute the IPRs.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Verizon and other carriers have filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on the ’272 patent owned by Korea’s KT Corp. They argue the denial violated due‑process and that institutional review is needed for efficiency and fairness.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

The PTAB denied Verizon and co‑petitioners' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case covering patent 11,540,272.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC filed an authorized response opposing Verizon and other carriers’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on patent 11,540,272. The response asserts the request lacks statutory basis and introduces impermissible new arguments.

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

· PGR2025-00012

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of Johns Hopkins' ’201 patent covering low‑molecular‑weight FAP‑α imaging agents, arguing obviousness, lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and indefiniteness.

Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.

· IPR2025-00325

Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging ParkerVision’s 9,118,528 patent covering down‑conversion receiver technology, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.

iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

iRhythm has filed an IPR petition challenging 26 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable heart‑monitor patent, asserting obviousness over Jensen, Kroll and other prior art. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and seeks cancellation of the claims.

iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

iRhythm has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 25 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v.AbTis Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-00283

Ajinomoto has filed an IPR petition challenging AbTis’s U.S. Patent 11,896,675 covering site‑specific antibody‑drug conjugates. The petitioner alleges lack of written description, improper priority, and that all 13 claims are anticipated or obvious over several pre‑grant publications and conference disclosures. The petition seeks cancellation of every claim.

Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.

· IPR2025-00324

Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 14 of ParkerVision’s ‘177 patent, asserting obviousness over Tayloe, a TI multiplexer datasheet, Razavi, and Uzunoglu references. The petition argues that the prior art predates the patent’s critical date and that discretionary denial factors do not apply.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Verizon and other carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of a 5G preemption patent owned by Pegasus Wireless. The petition relies on obviousness over the Kuchibhotla and Chen publications and asks the PTAB to institute the review.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

patent instituted · Dec 24, 2024

Verizon and co‑petitioners seek to invalidate a 5G resource‑allocation patent owned by Pegasus Wireless, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art standards and publications. The petition requests the PTAB to institute the IPR and cancel all 20 challenged claims.

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

· PGR2025-00012

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE challenged The Johns Hopkins University's claims regarding FAP-α targeting moieties based on obviousness and patentability issues (103/112). The Board instituted the PGR, finding that the claims face significant challenges related to enablement and indefiniteness.

patent instituted · Dec 24, 2024

Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v.AbTis Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-00283

Ajinomoto Co., Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against AbTis Co., Ltd.'s patent (11896675) covering Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs). The Board found sufficient evidence for institution on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness regarding claim 11.

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-001085

Insulet Corporation v.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (UPC_CFI_380/2024)

This procedural order concerns an application for costs filed by Insulet Corporation against Menarini Diagnostics following the rejection of Menarini's intervention request in provisional measures proceedings. The Central Division Milan ruled that Insulet, as the successful party opposing the intervention, was entitled to recover its legal costs from Menarini, ordering Menarini to pay €1,764 by 8 January 2025.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001084

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH

Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning patent infringement actions involving European Patents Nos. 2 197 132, 3 024 163, and 2 584 854. The parties agreed to withdraw their respective actions and counterclaims, with each side bearing its own costs. The court permitted the withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and granted a 40 percent partial reimbursement of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001083

Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE

This order concerns procedural matters following the Local Chamber Munich's August 30, 2024 decision invalidating European Patent No. 1 838 002 and dismissing the infringement action. After Avago filed an appeal and Tesla filed a cost determination application, both parties sought to withdraw their respective applications. The court granted the withdrawal of the cost determination application and ordered each party to bear their own costs in that proceeding.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001082

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation

Microsoft Corporation filed an application before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court seeking protection of confidential information under Rule 262 RoP regarding Exhibit BP 01, a settlement offer document. The court granted the application, ruling that while the document was already known to Suinno and did not require restriction of access between the parties under Rule 262A RoP, its original confidential version should not be available to the public due to the confidential nature of certain information contained therein.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001081

Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico

This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 065 184 B1, addressing a request by Defendants 3, 5 to 8 (Memodo GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, and Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico) to classify certain information as confidential. The court found that while the formal requirements of R. 262A.3 RoP were not met, the request under R. 262.2 RoP was admissible. The court classified the green-shaded passages in the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation, along with Exhibits Aff3 and Aff4, as confidential trade secrets relating to revenue, profit, and sales figures of Defendants 7 and 8.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001080

TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE

TIRU, holder of European Patent EP 3 178 578 B1 concerning a waste incineration installation and associated process, filed an ex parte request before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division of Paris) for the preservation of evidence and a site inspection against VALINEA ENERGIE. TIRU alleged that a furnace supplied by MAGUIN to VALINEA's Montbéliard energy recovery plant reproduced the patented invention. The court granted the requested measures, ordering a detailed description, seizure of technical documentation, and digital evidence preservation, subject to a €10,000 security deposit.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001079

Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico

This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in proceedings involving European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The court granted confidentiality protection for green-shaded financial information (revenue, profit, and sales figures) submitted by Defendants 1, 2, and 4 in their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation, while rejecting the request for protection of grey-shaded technical information that had already been submitted in parallel proceedings before the District Court of Mannheim without confidentiality measures.