US PTAB IP Litigation

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00106

FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, arguing that the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the case duplicates ongoing litigation. The petition highlights ethical violations, overlapping issues, and time‑bar concerns.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00057

Amazon seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging B.S.D. Crown’s remote‑desktop patent. The petitioner contends the Board abused discretion by rejecting a preliminary reply on claim construction and misreading the patent’s scope.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.

· IPR2025-00141

Nike successfully defended its footwear patent against Skechers’ request for Director Review of a denied IPR institution. The Board affirmed the denial under §325(d), finding Skechers’ arguments unpersuasive.

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

· IPR2025-00041

Google and Motorola settled their IPR against Multifold’s patent 9,058,153, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2025-00139

The USPTO Director denied Liberty Energy’s request for a review of the institution decision on U.S. Patent 11,208,878, leaving the patent’s institution intact.

Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.

· IPR2025-00136

The PTAB denied Aardevo North America’s request for director review of its petition to institute an IPR against Agventure’s potato‑breeding patent. The Board held that the petitioner’s reliance on physical products violated statutory limits and that it failed to rebut secondary considerations of non‑obviousness.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

· IPR2025-00180

Comcast and Entropic Communications filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR over patent 11,785,275.

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.

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2025-00139

The PTAB denied U.S. Well Services’ request to file new Director Review submissions in IPR2025‑00139, leaving the institution of the proceeding intact. The dispute centers on alleged violations of a Sotera stipulation by the petitioners in parallel district‑court litigation.

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

· IPR2025-00058

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.

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-00145

The PTAB denied Sinclair Pharma’s request for a rehearing of the order that vacated the institution of IPR2025‑00145 concerning HydraFacial’s skin‑care device patent. The Board found no basis to grant rehearing after reviewing the parties’ submissions.

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.

Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00098

Micron’s request to overturn the institution of an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies was denied. The Board affirmed YMTC’s eligibility as a petitioner and found no RPI issues or grounds for discretionary denial.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2025-00002

The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’218 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of success on all 22 claims, based on obviousness over Hazelzet combined with JEDEC, Buchmann, and Kim.

YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00099

Micron has filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its 3D NAND patent, arguing YMTC lacks standing and the Board should have exercised discretionary denial.

MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

· IPR2025-00100

MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and keep it separate from the patent file.

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

· IPR2025-00139

Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services filed a detailed response defending the institution of IPR2025‑00139 against U.S. Well Services’ request for a Director’s discretionary denial. The brief leans heavily on Fintiv precedent and argues that the Board’s factual findings are correct and that the patent’s claims remain vulnerable to three prior‑art combinations.

MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

· IPR2025-00100

MediaTek and Daedalus Prime reached a settlement that resolves all disputes, prompting a joint motion to terminate the IPR on patent 9,887,838. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties seek termination.

Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.

· IPR2024-01451

Carl Batt, an expert for Lawrence Livermore, submits a declaration defending the RE43,365 patent against Bio‑Rad’s IPR. He contends that the cited prior art (Ismagilov, Quake, Holliger, SchneegaB, etc.) does not anticipate or render the claims obvious. The Board has already instituted the proceeding.

Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.

· IPR2025-00136

The PTAB denied Aardevo North America's request for Director Review of the earlier decision denying institution of IPR2025-00136 covering patent 11,140,841. The petition was dismissed without further action.

Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00098

The PTAB granted a Director Review of the institution decision in Micron's IPR against Yangtze Memory, staying the proceedings while the Board reconsidered challenges related to foreign sovereign control and RPI disclosure.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· IPR2025-00001

The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’218 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

· IPR2025-00157

ResMed filed a request to waive the 30‑day deadline for a Director Review in its IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices. The Board has set a five‑day window for the patent owner to respond, limiting the reply to five pages and prohibiting new evidence.