US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 104 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2024-01502
Tecan Group AG files a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR filed by Integrated DNA Technologies. The patent owner alleges procedural abuse, unsupported expert testimony, and misinterpretation of claim scope. The request highlights parallel litigation and discretionary denial issues.
patent denied
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
· IPR2025-00036
The USPTO denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00036, leaving the original denial in place.
patent
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01494
Western Digital seeks to have the PTAB vacate an instituted IPR on its MTJ hard‑drive patent, arguing that piecemeal review undermines the AIA and that the district court is the proper forum.
patent
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
· IPR2024-01498
Procter & Gamble has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s finding that all claims of its aluminum‑free deodorant patent are obvious. The company argues the Board misinterpreted the hardness test and failed to show a proper motivation to combine disparate prior art. It also raises a procedural defect regarding real‑party identification.
patent terminated or settled
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
· IPR2025-00031
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
patent
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
· IPR2024-01494
Western Digital filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny IP Bridge’s Director Review request. The brief argues that IP Bridge ignored Board guidance and provides no basis for vacating the institution decisions.
patent
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01491
HydraFacial LLC opposes Eunsung Global Corp.’s request for Director Review, asserting the Board properly denied institution under Fintiv factors and that the petitioner’s new arguments are untimely. The Patent Owner urges the Director to deny the request.
patent terminated or settled
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
· IPR2025-00048
Nokia, AT&T, and T‑Mobile jointly settled with Woodbury Wireless over U.S. Patent 9,496,930, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. Settlement agreements were kept confidential per Board order.
patent
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
· IPR2024-01491
Eunsung Global Corp. seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against HydraFacial’s hydrodermabrasion patent, arguing misapplication of Fintiv factors and the need for efficient resolution of multiple lawsuits.
patent denied
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
· IPR2025-00031
The USPTO denied Liberty Energy's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00031, leaving the IPR proceeding intact.
patent
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
· IPR2024-01488
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and filed a joint motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 USC 317(b). The Board is asked to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit access.
patent instituted
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00021
Google and Samsung petitioned to keep an IPR against Mullen Industries’ 19‑claim patent alive. The Board’s analysis of Fintiv factors supports institution, and the petition argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
patent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2024-01472
Samsung Electronics filed a reply opposing Mullen Industries’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering Samsung’s smartwatch patent. The petitioner argues that discretionary factors favor institution, citing lack of overlap and strong merits. Samsung seeks denial of the director’s review request.
patent instituted
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00019
Google and co‑petitioners filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to uphold the institution of IPR2025‑00019 against Mullen Industries’ patent 9,204,283. The brief emphasizes minimal claim overlap, strong petition merits, and the inapplicability of discretionary denial under § 314(a).
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00019
Mullen Industries has requested Director Review of IPR2025-00019 and related cases. The PTAB has limited the petitioner’s response to five pages and a five‑day deadline, prohibiting new evidence.
patent instituted
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2024-01472
The PTAB granted Samsung's petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries' 11,190,633 patent covering smartwatch notifications. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 39 claims based on prior art combinations. Institution was ordered and the trial will commence.
patent terminated or settled
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
· IPR2024-01468
Major U.S. carriers and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,094,868, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
patent denied
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
· IPR2025-00101
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00101, leaving the original decision unchanged.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2024-01465
Google filed Director Review requests for two IPRs challenging Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent. The Board limited the patent owner’s reply to five pages and barred new evidence, with a decision pending.
patent denied
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00029
The USPTO denied QIAGEN's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,876,108 owned by Tecan.
patent
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00029
The PTAB notified QIAGEN that Tecan’s Director Review request for IPR2025-00029 is pending. QIAGEN has five days to submit a concise, five‑page response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
patent
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
· IPR2025-00029
Tecan Group AG seeks Director Review to overturn a PTAB institution decision that granted QIAGEN's IPR petition challenging its genotyping patent. The owner contends the panel abused discretion, over‑relied on expert testimony, and ignored policy against multiple parallel petitions.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00021
Mullen Industries requested Director Review of multiple IPRs against Google. The PTAB limited Google’s reply to five pages and barred new evidence, giving a five‑business‑day deadline.
patent
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
· IPR2024-01463
Solus Advanced Materials seeks to block the PTAB Director's review of its successful institution of an IPR against SK Nexilis' 11,591,706 patent covering advanced material technology.
