Patent Cases

12,989 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 2,823 European UPC 1,592 US PTAB 8,574

Page 218 of 433

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00291

Google’s request for a Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s patent was rejected. The Board found the petitioners offered no statutory basis and raised new arguments, affirming the Director’s Fintiv analysis as reasonable.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.

· IPR2025-00289

The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable. Petitioner Imperative Care proved anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller and Garrison, with the Board emphasizing that the claimed filament must be flexible.

patent instituted

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.

· IPR2025-00289

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success. All challenged claims (1‑7, 9‑10, 15‑18, 20‑24) are now under review.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00291

Google and other U.S. carriers have filed a petition for Director Review, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00291 concerning patent 10,594,460. They argue the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, retroactively changed policy, and violated due process. The petition seeks to have the denial vacated and the IPR instituted.

patent instituted

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.

· IPR2025-00289

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00274

WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. have settled their IPR dispute and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.

patent terminated or settled

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00281

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp’s IPRs against BirchTech were terminated for MidAmerican Energy after the parties settled, with the settlement agreement kept confidential.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00290

Google and other carriers filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against patent 10,721,118. They contend the Board abused discretion, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed policy, seeking a review of the denial.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.

· IPR2025-00232

The PTAB found all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent unpatentable, adopting broader claim constructions and granting Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 21‑26.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.

· IPR2025-00289

The PTAB denied Imperative Care’s petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 11,744,691, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board concluded the cited prior art did not disclose the required negative‑pressure pump configuration.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00322

Tessell, Inc. filed a fee transmittal to request Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00322 concerning Nutanix’s patent 11,010,336. The filing includes payment of $452 and asserts small and micro entity status.

Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00345

Google seeks Director Review of its IPR challenges to SoundClear’s patent, prompting a brief response window for the patent owner.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00274

Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements treated as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related Board rules. The request aims to keep the settlement terms separate from the public patent record.

Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.

· IPR2025-00287

Biofrontera has filed a rehearing request challenging the Board’s denial to institute an IPR on Sun Pharmaceutical’s photodynamic therapy patent, arguing the claims are highly vulnerable and that institution would prevent inconsistent rulings.

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

· IPR2025-00376

An email from the PTAB Director informs Welch Allyn that iRhythm’s Director Review requests for multiple IPRs have been received, outlining a five‑business‑day deadline for a concise response and prohibiting new evidence.

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

· IPR2025-00349

Stingray Group and Stingray Music contest a late Director review request concerning a music‑licensing patent, urging the PTAB to deny the request on procedural and substantive grounds. The petitioners highlight the patent’s lack of commercialization and the improper submission of new evidence.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00281

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliate MidAmerican Energy have moved to keep their settlement with BirchTech Corp. confidential, invoking federal statutes to limit disclosure. The Board has been asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information.

Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.

· IPR2025-00296

Microsoft and EyesMatch jointly request that their settlement agreement be kept confidential under business‑confidential rules, invoking 35 U.S.C. §327 and related regulations.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00274

Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s subsidiaries Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light have settled with patent owner Birchtech Corp., prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review of patent 10,343,114.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00274

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates challenge a mercury‑control patent owned by MES, Inc., arguing the PTAB, not the MDL, should decide the validity issues and that the Director’s review request should be denied.

Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation

· IPR2025-00267

Entegris contests Inpria’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of an IPR, arguing that Lam Research is not a real party in interest and that Inpria’s claim‑construction arguments are untimely.

Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation

· IPR2025-00267

Entegris seeks rehearing of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Inpria’s ’903 patent covering semiconductor‑material compounds. The petition argues the Director’s retroactive rescission of guidance and misapplication of Fintiv factors violated statutory and due‑process requirements.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00281

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates petition the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR on a coal‑emissions control patent, arguing MDL efficiency and a misapplied time‑bar analysis. The Patent Owner seeks a discretionary denial of institution.

Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation

· IPR2025-00267

Inpria seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its ’903 patent, arguing Entegris failed the real‑party‑in‑interest test and that the Board’s claim construction conflicts with a Delaware court ruling.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00281

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates filed an authorized response opposing the patent owner's request for Director Review, arguing the PTAB is the proper forum and that the petitions are timely and free of undisclosed parties.

Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation

· IPR2025-00267

The USPTO granted Entegris’s rehearing request, vacated the earlier discretionary denial, and sent the IPR on Inpria’s lithography patent back to the Board for institution after a related district‑court case settled.

patent terminated or settled

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00280

MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 10,596,517 and jointly request the PTAB treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential information, effectively ending the proceeding.

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

· IPR2025-00350

Stingray Group’s petition challenges a late, unauthorized request by patent owner Edwin Hernandez-Mondragon to submit new evidence in IPR2025-00350. The petition argues the request should be denied for untimely filing and rule violations.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.

· IPR2025-00232

The PTAB held that all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent were unpatentable, adopting the petitioner’s claim constructions and granting Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 21‑26.

patent terminated or settled

Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.

· IPR2025-00264

The IPRs challenging Kyocera’s patents were terminated after the parties reached a settlement, with the agreement kept confidential.

1 •••217 218 219•••433

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →