US PTAB IP Litigation

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00453 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over HydraFacial's facial treatment patent.

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 14, 2025

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record, citing statutory confidentiality protections.

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

Eunsung Global Corp. and HydraFacial LLC settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate both IPRs before institution. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.

patent denied · Jan 14, 2025

Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.

· IPR2025-00372

Kangxi Communications seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against Skyworks’ RF front‑end patent, alleging due‑process violations from retroactive policy changes. The petition contends that the Board improperly applied new Fintiv and “settled expectations” doctrines, and that the withdrawal of prior‑art defenses from a parallel ITC case should not trigger denial.

Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.

· IPR2025-00372

Skyworks seeks affirmation of the PTAB Director's denial of institution for an IPR filed by Kangxi over a wireless front‑end patent. The Patent Owner emphasizes the six Fintib factors and its settled expectations of validity to argue against institution.

patent denied · Jan 14, 2025

Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.

· IPR2025-00372

The USPTO denied Kangxi Communications’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00372, leaving Skyworks Solutions’ patent 9,917,563 unchallenged at the institution stage.

SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00414

SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of Valtrus’s ’182 data‑redundancy patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.

SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00415

SAP America has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of Valtrus Innovations’ ’139 patent, asserting obviousness over Srinivasan and Taylor. The petitioner argues the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) or 314(a).

Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.

· IPR2025-00373

Kangxi Communications Technologies has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Skyworks' U.S. Patent 8,717,101 covering biasing circuits for RF power amplifiers. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Ishimaru publication and over Ishimaru combined with Harrison’s current‑mirror teaching, and opposes discretionary denial.

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

Eunsung Global Corp. petitions the PTAB to cancel HydraFacial's 11,446,477 skin‑treatment patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references.

SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00418

SAP America seeks an IPR to invalidate Valtrus’s 6,871,264 patent covering a multi‑processor cache allocation system, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier patents. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).

patent · Jan 13, 2025

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 13, 2025

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations.

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 13, 2025

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 12,053,607 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board has not yet issued a final decision, and the parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB instituted a trial. The Board granted joint motions to terminate and to keep the settlement agreement confidential, ending the proceedings.

patent · Jan 13, 2025

Caihong Display Devices Co. Ltd. v.Corning Inc.

· IPR2025-00439

Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Corning’s 2010 glass‑substrate patent, asserting obviousness over Miwa and Bange and anticipation by Miwa. The petition includes an expert declaration and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

patent · Jan 13, 2025

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of HydraFacial’s ’607 skin‑treatment patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art microdermabrasion references.

patent · Jan 12, 2025

Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC

· IPR2026-00163

Medtronic petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑fusion patent owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, alleging the invention was already disclosed in earlier patents by Gordon, McLuen, and Michelson. The petition raises anticipation and obviousness grounds under §§ 102 and 103(a).

patent · Jan 12, 2025

Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation

· IPR2025-01601

Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Brain Corp.’s U.S. Patent 10,379,539, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider well‑known navigation and obstacle‑avoidance techniques. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.

Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC

· IPR2025-01575

Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging Perceptive Automata’s AI‑driven image‑analysis patent (U.S. 11,753,046). The petition asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues that many claim elements are non‑patentable printed matter.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC

· IPR2025-01554

Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of claims 1‑14 of PayGeo’s U.S. Patent No. 11,087,307. The challenger argues the claims are obvious in view of Lin, Rackley, and Tumminaro prior‑art references. The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC

· IPR2025-01555

Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of PayGeo’s U.S. Patent 12,014,347, asserting that its ten claims covering multi‑factor authentication are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Grigg, Carter, and Google’s 2‑step verification. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC

· IPR2025-01553

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑14 of PayGeo’s ’018 mobile‑payment patent, asserting obviousness over Lin, Rackley and Tumminaro. The petition requests institution of the review.