US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 101 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent terminated or settled
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
· IPR2025-00063
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have settled their IPR dispute with Woodbury Wireless over U.S. Patent 10,211,895, filing the settlement as confidential and moving to terminate the proceeding.
patent
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00036
Nokia, Ericsson, AT&T and other carriers have filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of their IPR challenging a Korean-owned telecom patent. They argue the Board abused discretion by ignoring a Sotera stipulation and misapplying Fintiv factors.
patent
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00036
Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC defends the Board’s denial of institution in IPR2025‑00036, arguing petitioners introduced new arguments and that the Board’s discretionary analysis under §314(a) was proper. The request for Director Review is contested and remains pending.
patent
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00034
Yangtze Memory Technologies seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Micron’s 3D NAND patent, arguing the Board relied on unsupported expert testimony and failed to deny institution despite weak merits.
patent
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00084
Ericsson and other U.S. carriers have filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR covering a 5G patent owned by Korea’s KT Corp. They argue the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, ignored a Sotera stipulation, and acted retroactively, violating due‑process. The request seeks reversal of the denial.
patent terminated or settled
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00083
Ericsson, KT and Pegasus entered a settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review as to Ericsson. The Board treated the settlement as confidential and left the proceeding open for the remaining petitioners.
patent
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
· IPR2025-00031
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR over the ’435 hydraulic fracturing patent, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits, and termination is sought for judicial economy.
patent
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00083
Nokia, KT, and Pegasus have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,638,463 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to Nokia. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
patent
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
· IPR2025-00031
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint request to keep their settlement confidential and to terminate IPR2025‑00031 concerning a hydraulic fracturing patent.
patent
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
· IPR2025-00031
U.S. Well Services seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering claims 1‑19 of its oilfield‑services patent, arguing the Board misapplied the Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors after a district court denied a stay.
patent denied
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00083
The PTAB denied a Director Review request by Ericsson and other petitioners, leaving the institution of Pegasus Wireless Innovation's patent 10,638,463 intact.
patent
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00083
Pegasus Wireless Innovation seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR on its ’463 patent, arguing the patent has been dropped from related district‑court litigation and should not consume Board resources.
patent denied
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
· IPR2025-00031
U.S. Well Services sought a Director Review of the PTAB institution decisions, alleging the petitioners violated a Sotera stipulation. The Director denied the request, leaving the IPRs to proceed to final written decisions.
patent terminated or settled
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
· IPR2025-00071
Roku and VideoLabs settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before any claims were instituted.
patent
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
· IPR2025-00104
The PTAB Director has opened a sua sponte review to reconsider institution decisions in seven IPRs involving TikTok and diabetes‑monitoring patents after rejecting the Patent Owner’s RPI and sovereign‑person arguments.
patent
Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC
· IPR2025-00145
HydraFacial has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025‑00145, restricting the petitioner to a brief, evidence‑free response.
patent denied
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
· IPR2025-00107
The USPTO Director denied Jumio Corp.'s request for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the challenge to FaceTec's facial recognition patent.
patent
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00029
QIAGEN’s response argues the PTAB correctly found material error in the examiner’s reliance on a flawed declaration and that the Board’s institution decision stands. The petition challenges the patent owner’s attempt to obtain discretionary denial based on procedural grounds.
patent
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00070
CrowdStrike filed a response urging the PTAB to deny GoSecure’s second request for Director review, arguing that all discretionary denial arguments were previously waived. The Board had already rejected those arguments, limiting the dispute to claim construction of “association.”
patent
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00026
Tecan Group AG seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of QIAGEN’s IPR, arguing that parallel petitions create inefficiency and unfairness. The request cites statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 316(b) and an Acting Director memo.
patent
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
· IPR2025-00070
GoSecure seeks Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of CrowdStrike’s IPR against patent 9,954,872, alleging the Board ignored binding precedent and misapplied claim construction. The request highlights inefficiencies, settled expectations, and unfair dealings.
patent denied
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00138
The PTAB denied the petitioners' request for Director Review, finding no abuse of discretion in the Director's denial of institution and rejecting new arguments raised for the first time.
patent
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00084
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR covering Pegasus’s 5G‑related patent. Petitioners sought Director Review, but the patent owner’s authorized response argues the denial was a proper exercise of §314(a) discretion and that the petitioners introduced new, unsupported arguments. The Board’s decision is urged to be upheld.
patent denied
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
· IPR2025-00025
The PTAB denied Samsung's petition for inter partes review of Truesight's '803 patent covering kiosk‑based media distribution. The Board applied the Fintiv discretionary factors and concluded that denying institution best served efficiency given the parallel district‑court litigation.
