Patent Cases

Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

patent terminated or settled · Oct 18, 2024

Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC opposes Nokia and other carriers' request for Director Review of the Board’s denial to institute an IPR. The owner asserts the petitioners raised new arguments and that the Board’s decision was not an abuse of discretion.

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00041

Motorola Mobility, Google and Multifold International have resolved their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,058,153 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The parties submitted covenants not to sue and seek early termination for judicial economy.

patent denied · Oct 18, 2024

Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

patent terminated or settled · Oct 18, 2024

The USPTO Director denied the petition by Nokia and other telecom carriers to review the PTAB’s decision denying institution of IPRs against Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s patents.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01507

Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,996,693. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and partially treated the settlement documents as confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Oct 18, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01507

Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s patent 8,996,693 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and related regulations.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01503

Amazon and Nokia filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after it had been instituted, and the Board granted termination while keeping the settlement documents confidential.

Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC

· IPR2025-00062

Zepp Health has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 15 claims of Slyde Analytics’ smartwatch power‑mode patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also requests that the Board not deny institution under discretionary provisions.

Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00032

Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,563,338, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering EV charging, GUI interfaces, and HVAC control. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).

Arthrex, Inc. et al. v.Medshape, Inc.

· IPR2025-00053

Arthrex has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of Medshape’s ’222 bone‑fixation patent, arguing obviousness over Monassevitch and over a Bolesky‑Hoffman combination. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §314.

Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Nokia and four other telecom operators have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of six claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s U.S. Patent 10,616,932, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references (Lin1, Lin2, Zhang). The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d).

patent denied · Oct 18, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01507

Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,996,693 patent covering dynamic and static data processing. The petition asserts obviousness over IBM’s Foster and Williams publications and seeks cancellation of 18 claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Arthrex, Inc. et al. v.Medshape, Inc.

· IPR2025-00053

The PTAB denied Arthrex's IPR petition against Medshape's patent (7985222), citing the complex and overlapping nature of co-pending district court litigation.

patent denied · Oct 18, 2024

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00040

Motorola and Google successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Multifold International for patent 9134756, focusing on dual-screen UI technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under both anticipation (Yook/Purcell) and obviousness grounds.

Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Nokia's wireless connection patents against Pegasus Wireless. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, citing significant investment and proximity to a parallel district court trial date.

Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00032

Tesla Inc. successfully secured institution in this IPR against Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC for battery charging system claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references.

MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.

· IPR2025-00030

MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge ParkerVision, Inc.'s '593 patent in an IPR proceeding before the PTAB. The Board instituted the trial on all 20 challenged claims based on obviousness (103), despite arguments regarding constitutional due process and duplication of district court litigation.

patent Final Written Decision · Oct 18, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01503

Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Nokia regarding video compression methods. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102).

MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.

· IPR2025-00030

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 challenged claims of the '593 patent unpatentable. The Board adopted Petitioner's view on claim construction for "power efficiency," allowing indirect measurements (voltage/current) rather than strictly a ratio, which was key to establishing obviousness.

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001201

NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College

This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 794 928 B1, owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College, brought by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Court of First Instance. The Claimant sought revocation of the patent, while the Defendant defended its validity. The Court examined its international jurisdiction of its own motion, declined to stay proceedings despite a parallel German revocation action in which the German Federal Patent Court had already revoked the German national part of the patent, and assessed novelty and inventive step under Article 54(1) EPC. The Court also refused permission for a subsequent auxiliary request to amend under Rule 50.2 RoP in conjunction with Rule 30.2 RoP, holding that it could and should have been filed earlier under the front-loaded system.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

An exhibit email shows that Google, the petitioner, does not oppose Multifold International’s request to replace a previously filed Request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision, asking the Board to accept a corrected filing without additional fees.

Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00048

Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile jointly settled with Woodbury Wireless and moved to terminate the IPR over patent 9,496,930. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory termination provisions.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Multifold’s patent, arguing the patent owner’s antedating evidence is insufficient and its declarants lack credibility.

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00039

Motorola Mobility and Google settled with Multifold International over U.S. Patent 9,146,589, leading to a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

Multifold International seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its dual‑screen smartphone patent, arguing the Board relied on a single dependent claim and ignored substantial antedating evidence. The petition contends the institution is inefficient and better suited for district‑court resolution.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

Google and Motorola challenged Multifold’s dual‑screen smartphone patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR on a single dependent claim, prompting Multifold to seek Director Review, arguing the Board ignored extensive antedating evidence and violated efficiency guidelines.

Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00048

Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have settled their IPR dispute with Woodbury Wireless over U.S. Patent 9,496,930. The parties filed a joint motion to keep the settlement confidential and to terminate the proceeding.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00061

Google and Motorola jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreements with Multifold International confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The parties seek to have the covenants not to sue treated as business confidential information and excluded from the public patent file.

Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC

· IPR2025-00048

Nokia, AT&T, and T‑Mobile jointly settled with Woodbury Wireless over U.S. Patent 9,496,930, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. Settlement agreements were kept confidential per Board order.

Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.

· IPR2024-01465

Google filed Director Review requests for two IPRs challenging Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent. The Board limited the patent owner’s reply to five pages and barred new evidence, with a decision pending.