US PTAB IP Litigation

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00068

CrowdStrike defends two PTAB petitions challenging GoSecure’s cybersecurity patent, emphasizing differing constructions of the term “association” and supporting claim constructions with the Capalik prior art. The response rebuts GoSecure’s arguments against the Board’s institution of parallel petitions and the definition of “computer system.”

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

· IPR2025-00063

Nokia, AT&T, and T‑Mobile jointly moved to terminate an IPR against Woodbury Wireless's patent 10,211,895. The PTAB granted the motion, sealing the settlement agreements and ending the proceeding before trial.

Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC

· IPR2025-00025

Samsung’s petition to invalidate Truesight’s virtual SD‑card patent was denied by the PTAB, which exercised its discretion under § 314(a) after weighing the six Fintiv factors and finding the parallel district‑court litigation outweighed the petition’s merits.

Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC

· IPR2025-00062

Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2025-00062. The PTAB granted the motion, ending the proceeding before any institution decision and keeping the settlement documents confidential.

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

· IPR2025-00037

Nokia, Ericsson, AT&T, Verizon and T‑Mobile have filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR targeting a Korean‑owned LTE patent. They argue the Board misapplied discretionary standards, ignored a Sotera stipulation, and failed to consider domestic economic impacts.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00107

Jumio’s petition to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against FaceTec’s facial‑recognition patent is met with a detailed response asserting that all Fintiv factors favor institution and that no discretionary denial applies.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

Google and Samsung petitioned for rehearing of a USPTO Director Review decision across several IPRs. The Board denied the rehearing requests, leaving the prior institution decisions in place.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to overturn a Director’s discretionary denial that left Mullen Industries’ 19‑claim patent alive. The petition argues misapplication of Fintiv factors, failure to honor a Sotera stipulation, and retroactive rescission of guidance.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

Google and Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ patent was denied. The Patent Owner’s response emphasized the Director’s discretionary authority, the parallel district‑court trial, and weak petition merits.

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

· IPR2025-00041

Motorola Mobility, Google, and Multifold International have jointly filed a request to keep their settlement covenants confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The request seeks to keep the settlement documents out of the public patent file.

Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC

· IPR2025-00062

Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,804,678 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet instituted the proceeding, and the parties cite public‑policy reasons for termination.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

Google and Samsung petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ wireless‑device patent. Mullen has filed a Director Review request arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and should deny institution under §314(a). The outcome of the review is pending.

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2025-00072

Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,233,790 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential, effectively moving to terminate the proceeding.

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00084

The PTAB denied Ericsson and co‑petitioners' request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00084, leaving the institution of the challenge to Pegasus Wireless Innovation's patent intact.

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

· IPR2025-00058

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.

· IPR2025-00058

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 Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00037

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.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00019

The PTAB upheld the Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Mullen Industries, finding that parallel district‑court litigation and weak petition merits justified the discretionary denial.

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2025-00072

Roku and VideoLabs have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Roku’s ’790 patent. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317 and Board practice allowing termination when no merits have been decided.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00018

Google and co‑petitioners seek rehearing of the Director’s order that denied institution of an IPR against Mullen’s 2021 wireless‑technology patent. They argue the Director misapplied discretionary denial standards, ignored the Sotera stipulation, and retroactively applied policy changes. The petition asks the Board to reinstate the original institution decision.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00019

Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Mullen’s 2015 patent. The petition contends the Board misapplied discretionary‑denial standards and ignored a binding Sotera stipulation.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.

· IPR2025-00050

Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.

First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB

· IPR2024-01487

Essity’s ‘138 patent covering a layered fluid‑flow control structure in diapers was challenged by First Quality. The Patent Owner’s response argues that the cited prior art does not meet the claim limitations, teaches away, and that the Petitioners’ expert lacks proper qualifications. The Board had already instituted the IPR.