Patent Cases

Atossa Therapeutics and Jina Pharmaceuticals settled their PTAB post‑grant review before trial, leading to a joint motion that terminated the proceeding. The settlement agreement is to remain confidential per the parties' request.

Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Atossa Therapeutics and Jina Pharmaceuticals have filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the pending post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 12,245,997. The parties cite statutory confidentiality protections and seek to keep the settlement separate from the PTAB file.

Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Atossa Therapeutics and Jina Pharmaceuticals have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,245,997 and filed a joint motion to terminate the post‑grant review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 327(a) and cites Board precedent for terminating settled proceedings.

Atossa Therapeutics, Inc. v.Jina Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Atossa Therapeutics has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging Jina Pharmaceuticals’ 2025 patent on an endoxifen method for bipolar I disorder. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and anticipation by prior‑art Ahmad 2016. The case is pending institution.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 11, 2025

Halozyme, Inc. v.Alteogen Inc.

· IPR2026-00176

Halozyme has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Alteogen’s 2025 ‘638 patent covering a temperature‑shift method for producing recombinant hyaluronidase PH20. The petition relies on obviousness over prior art Wei and Zmuda, with a second ground adding Wei 2013.

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 11, 2025

Meta Platforms successfully challenged all twenty claims of SitNet’s ’682 patent covering a situational network and roll‑call system. The Board held the claims obvious over the Burfeind and Crowley references under 35 U.S.C. §103. No claim construction was required.

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC

Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’932 patent covering situational‑network advertising. The PTAB found all ten challenged claims (12‑21) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing obviousness over Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones. The decision finalizes the institution and cancellation of the claims.

Xingmai Innovation Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. d/b/a Beatbot, Beatbot Technology (USA) Co., Ltd. et al. v.AIPER GLOBAL PTE. LTD.

· PGR2026-00012

Beatbot seeks a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,221,196 covering a pool‑cleaning robot with buoyancy‑control features. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim terms. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.

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

· PGR2025-00087

Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,371,685 covering modified PH20 hyaluronidase proteins, asserting lack of written description and enablement.

Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC

· IPR2026-00124

Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 16 and 19 of a spinal fusion implant patent owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, asserting obviousness over earlier McLuen and Michelson disclosures. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and highlights alleged concealment of prior art by the patent owner.

Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC

· IPR2026-00121

Medtronic has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of the ’755 spinal implant patent, alleging that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Schäfer, Yeh, Berry, and Suddaby. The petition contends the patent owner concealed key references during prosecution.

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC

Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitNet’s ’463 patent covering situational networks, asserting that all 12 claims are obvious over prior‑art combinations of location‑based social networking technologies.

patent instituted · Oct 11, 2025

Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00106

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 18 claims of Headwater's MMS‑related patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of 3GPP standards and multiple prior‑art patents. The petition lists 14 distinct grounds, each tying specific claim limitations to prior references.

Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC

· IPR2026-00124

The USPTO granted institution for IPR2026-00124, allowing Medtronic to proceed with challenging Moskowitz Family LLC's patent.

patent denied · Oct 11, 2025

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC

The USPTO denied institution for IPR2026-00112 after reviewing the merits, finding that Meta Platforms failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing against SitNet's patent.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000305

Motorola Mobility LLC v.1) ASUSTek Computer Inc 2) ASUS Computer GmbH 3) ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED

Motorola Mobility LLC, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 3 972 309, brought an infringement action against ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) Limited before the Local Chamber Munich. The patent concerns a method and apparatus for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting the security keys used in user equipment communicating with two cell groups. The defendants filed a counterclaim. The case was heard orally on July 9, 2025, and the decision was issued on October 10, 2025, by a panel of four judges.

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-000304

WIRPLAST Więcek Spółka Jawna v.Vilpe Oy

A revocation action was brought by WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna against VILPE OY concerning European patent EP 2 649 380. An interim conference was held on 9 October 2025 before the judge-rapporteur, who issued an order on 10 October 2025 setting out the procedural decisions taken. Key rulings included deeming the Claimant's Rejoinder timely, rejecting the Claimant's request to forgo translations of documents D1, D2, and D4, admitting a warning letter into the proceedings, setting the case value at EUR 630,000, and confirming the oral hearing for 3 December 2025.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000303

Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH

This case concerns European Patent No. 3 215 288 B1, relating to metal sintering preparations, which is in force in Germany, France, Italy, and Romania. Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG filed an infringement action against Vibrantz GmbH, while Vibrantz filed a counterclaim for revocation along with applications for patent amendment and a decision on an absolute procedural bar. The Local Chamber Munich addressed the binding effect of a final national revocation judgment under Art. 24.1(e) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, holding that in the absence of specific UPCA regulations, national law governs this question, and also examined private prior use rights in Germany, France, Italy, and Romania.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000301

HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products

1. Infringement action about shelf dividers. Patent valid and infringed. Indirect infringement. Long-arm jurisdiction. 2. Counterclaim for declaration of non-infringement with revised product held inadmissible. There was no assertion of infringement prior to instituting the counterclaim nor had defendant applied in writing for an acknowledgement as meant in R. 61.1 RoP. Such assertion may not be deduced from the mere fact that the patent was invoked with respect to a different product. Rel

patent denied · Oct 10, 2025

American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2026-00043

The PTAB denied American Airlines and Southwest Airlines’ petition to institute an IPR against Intellectual Ventures’ ’326 patent covering high‑data‑rate multi‑channel WLAN. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 18 challenged claims.

Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC

· IPR2025-01577

Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Perceptive Automata’s autonomous‑vehicle patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art machine‑learning and sensor‑fusion publications such as Djuric, Zhu, Cox, and Ross.

Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v.Ziklag IP LLC

· IPR2026-00047

Amazon Web Services has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of a 2001 music‑distribution patent, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of earlier cable‑distribution patents (Yurt and Logan). The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.

· IPR2026-00040

Fortinet has filed an IPR petition against Netskope’s ’336 patent covering network‑access redirection. The challenger contends that all 20 claims are anticipated or obvious over Subbiah and, for dependent claims, over Hinton and Crandell. Fortinet seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.

Generac Power Systems, Inc. v.PSLC LLC

· IPR2026-00022

Generac Power Systems has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 27 claims of U.S. Patent 11,967,857 covering backup‑power load control. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of four prior‑art references and defines key terms to support its position.