Patent Cases

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

· IPR2025-00374

iRhythm has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 12 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, arguing obviousness over Jensen, Matsumura and Kroll. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.

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

· IPR2025-00363

iRhythm has filed a petition for inter partes review of Welch Allyn’s U.S. Patent 10,159,422 covering a wearable ECG sensor. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references—Matsumura, Jensen, and Ozguz—and asks the PTAB to cancel them.

Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC

· IPR2025-00307

Twitch Interactive has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of RazDog’s cloud‑based content‑aggregation patent, arguing obviousness over Darnell, Kim, and Dasgupta references. The petition stresses favorable discretionary factors for institution.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00354

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology petitions to invalidate 17 claims of Stratasys' 3D‑printer patent, arguing that a combination of prior‑art references makes the claims obvious. The petition also challenges a discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).

Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.

· IPR2025-00351

Stingray Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 26 claims of the ’441 patent, alleging anticipation or obviousness over a wide range of prior‑art streaming patents. The petition argues that the Board should not deny the request and requests institution of the review.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00341

Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Pat. 7,181,743. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Welch whitepaper and related publications, and disputes any discretionary denial.

Intel Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2025-00329

Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Proxense’s ’672 patent covering wireless time‑slot allocation, arguing the claims are obvious over public standards and prior‑art publications.

Intel Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2025-00328

Intel has filed a petition to invalidate Proxense’s U.S. Patent 8,219,129 covering high‑rate WPAN communications, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references.

Intel Corporation v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2025-00327

Intel has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s 9,265,043 patent covering wireless time‑slot allocation. The petition asserts obviousness over combinations of Gilb, IEEE 802.15.3, Ward, and Brawn, and argues discretionary denial is improper.

Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC

· IPR2025-00308

Twitch Interactive has filed a petition to invalidate claim 1 of Razdog’s cloud‑computing patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeking institution of an IPR trial.

Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.

· PGR2025-00013

Therabody successfully challenged Hyperice's patent claims in a PTAB proceeding focused on massaging devices. The Board found likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness and statutory deficiencies, particularly regarding the combination of prior art references.

POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ArcelorMittal

· IPR2025-00371

POSCO Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal's patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 25 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness (103) involving various prior art combinations.

POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ArcelorMittal

· IPR2025-00370

POSCO Co., Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal's patent (10961602) regarding coated steel/aluminum alloys for automotive parts. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, instituting the challenge across 30 claims.

patent denied · Dec 23, 2024

Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.

· IPR2025-00351

Stingray Group Inc. successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against a patent covering multimedia content delivery systems. The Board found that Petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing across multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, moving the case to the merits phase.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00341

The PTAB denied Tesla's IPR against Intellectual Ventures II over patent 7,181,743. The Board found that the prior art did not teach or suggest the specific 'event correlation capabilities' required by the challenged claims.

Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC

· IPR2025-00308

Twitch Interactive successfully challenged a patent claim in the PTAB, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board adopted Petitioner's narrow construction of 'real time,' favoring transmission upon availability without significant delay over strict human-perception timing.

Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC

· IPR2025-00307

Twitch Interactive successfully secured institution of its § 103 IPR challenge against Razdog Holdings LLC's patent. The Board adopted the Petitioner's interpretation of 'real time,' allowing the case to proceed to trial on all claims.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001091

G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG v.pharma-aktiva GmbH, ALDI SÜD Dienstleistungs-SE & Co. oHG, ALDI Nord Deutschland Stiftung & Co. KG, ALDI SE & Co. KG, Hofer Kommanditgesellschaft

G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG, the proprietor of European Patent EP 1 993 363 B1 concerning a composition for combating ectoparasites and their eggs, sought interim measures against pharma-aktiva GmbH and several Aldi/Hofer entities for alleged infringement through the sale of a competing lice spray. The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court granted the interim measures in part, ordering the respondents to cease certain manufacturing, offering, and distribution activities in Germany and Austria, with penalties of EUR 100 per unit for violations, and to surrender infringing products in their possession.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001090

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' appeal against the dismissal of its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis concerning European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1 for a C5-binding antibody (eculizumab) used to treat paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. The court held that the patent's claim 2 could not be corrected by interpretation to remove 22 extra amino acids at the N-terminus of SEQ ID NO:4, as the existence of the error and the precise correction were not sufficiently certain to the person skilled in the art. Consequently, the court found it more likely than not that claim 2 was insufficiently disclosed under Art. 83 EPC, and ordered Alexion to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001089

HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG (Application for Access to Court Files) v.Ex Parte

HARTING Electric Stiftung & Co. KG, an opponent in pending opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office concerning European Patent EP 3 602 692, applied for access to the briefs and evidence filed in infringement proceedings between PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG and Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH before the Local Division Munich. The court granted the application, holding that an opponent in pending opposition proceedings has a legal interest in accessing court files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP during ongoing proceedings.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-001088

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.

Procedural order in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3669828 before the Local Division Munich. The court granted both parties' Rule 263 requests to add Romania (which acceded to the Unitary Patent system on 1 September 2024) to the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation, and granted the claimant's request to amend its information request to require purchase documents. The court set the dispute value at €16 million, scheduled the oral hearing for 11 February 2025, and rejected requests for party and court experts.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-001087

10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning EP4108782. The court confirmed the judge-rapporteur's rejection of Harvard's third request to amend the patent, holding that under Rule 30.2 RoP, a delay of approximately three months between the reason for the amendment (the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion of August 2, 2024) and the filing of the request (October 25, 2024) was too long. The court ruled that the patent proprietor's subjective expectations regarding procedural delay are irrelevant, and the question must be assessed objectively.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001086

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Amgen N.V., Amgen GmbH, Amgen AB, Amgen S.A.S., Amgen s.r.l., Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the proprietor of European Patent 3 167 888 B1 relating to the antibody eculizumab for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, sought provisional measures against Amgen, which markets BEKEMV®, a biosimilar of Soliris®. The Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) dismissed Alexion's application, and Alexion appealed. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the patent's SEQ ID NO:4 sequence must be interpreted as including 22 extra amino acids at the N-terminus, and that Alexion had failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the skilled person would correct this as an error, rendering the patent claim more likely than not insufficiently disclosed under Art. 83 EPC.

Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.

· IPR2025-00350

The PTAB granted institution of IPR2025-00350 on June 13, 2025. A director‑review request filed by the patent owner on July 13 was deemed untimely and will not be considered.

patent · Dec 20, 2024

Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.

· IPR2025-00350

The PTAB notified parties that Director Review requests for three IPRs have been received. The petitioner has five business days to submit a concise response limited to the raised issues, with no new evidence allowed.

Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.

· IPR2025-00349

The PTAB issued an institution decision for IPR2025-00349 on June 13, 2025. A later director‑review request by the patent owner was filed after the 14‑day deadline and was deemed untimely, so the Board will not consider it.

patent denied · Dec 20, 2024

Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2025-00348

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive streaming patent and granted joinder of Czech challenger Webgroup and NKL Associates, linking the case to a prior IPR over the same claims.

Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2025-00347

The USPTO denied Webgroup Czech Republic's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs challenging DISH Technologies patents.