US PTAB IP Litigation

QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2025-00028

QIAGEN’s response defends the PTAB’s institution of unpatentability findings for its NGS enrichment patents, rejecting Tecan’s arguments for a discretionary denial under §325(d). The petitioner emphasizes material error, proper nexus analysis, and lack of procedural abuse.

QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2025-00026

QIAGEN contests Tecan's request for discretionary denial of a parallel IPR, arguing procedural impropriety and lack of supporting authority. The response cites General Plastic factors and the strength of its claim‑1 invalidity case.

QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2025-00028

Tecan seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of QIAGEN’s IPR, arguing the Board abused discretion, over‑relied on expert testimony, and allowed duplicate petitions. The request targets the institution decision for patent No. 10,036,012 covering NGS genotyping methods.

Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.

· IPR2025-00106

The PTAB Director denied Jumio Corp.'s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00106, leaving the institution of FaceTec's patent intact.

Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC

· IPR2024-01468

Headwater Partners and major carriers have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,094,868 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2025-00071

Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.

· IPR2024-01460

The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' request for rehearing of its institution denial, finding the petition did not overcome the Fintiv factors, particularly the tight trial schedule. Institution of the IPR remains denied.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01505

Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,571,833 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.

Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

· IPR2024-01447

Western Digital seeks a Director Review to overturn an IPR finding that its MTJ memory patent is obvious. The patent owner contends the Board misapplied the APA, misread prior‑art references, and erred on expectation‑of‑success analysis.

Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1

· IPR2024-01447

The USPTO denied director review requests for three IPRs, including Western Digital's data‑storage patent, leaving the institution decisions intact.

patent instituted

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2024-01506

Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Tecan’s DNA‑sequencing patent. The petitioner argues the institution is efficient, the expert testimony is proper, and there was no abuse of discretion. The Board’s institution therefore stands.

ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.

· IPR2024-01445

ETN Capital and FBA Operating Co. filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate it from the IPR record.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00019

Mullen Industries seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision instituting an IPR against its wireless‑device‑location patent. The request argues the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the IPR would duplicate parallel district‑court litigation.

Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.

· IPR2024-01444

Aktana and Veeva Systems settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-01443 and IPR2024-01444 before institution. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00018

The PTAB upheld its denial of institution in IPR2025-00018, finding that a parallel district‑court trial and weak petition merits justified the decision. Patent Owner’s response reinforces the Director’s discretionary authority under § 314(d).

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2024-01504

Tecan Genomics seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of Integrated DNA Technologies’ IPR, arguing the panel misapplied discretionary‑denial standards, relied on unsupported expert testimony, and created wasteful parallel litigation. The request cites policy under §§ 316(b) and 325(d) and urges denial of the petition.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00018

Mullen Industries seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 11,122,418 patent. The owner contends the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and should deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00019

The USPTO denied Google and Samsung’s request for rehearing of a Director Review order that vacated the institution of an IPR against Mullen Industries. The denial applies to four related IPRs.

Deere & Company v.Davidâ€™s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01442

Deere & Company has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR challenge to U.S. Patent 10,533,300, which covers skid‑steer automatic grading technology. The petition argues the Board misapplied teaching‑away doctrine to the Funk reference and ignored advantages of the claimed combination.

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2025-00016

Tecan Group AG petitions the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR filed by Integrated DNA Technologies, arguing the Panel misapplied expert testimony and misread the Meyer prior art. The request also cites policy concerns over multiple overlapping petitions.

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2025-00015

Tecan Genomics requests Director Review to overturn a PTAB institution decision that granted IDT’s IPR. The patent owner alleges procedural errors, over‑reliance on expert testimony, and policy conflicts, seeking denial of the petition.

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2025-00016

The PTAB denied Integrated DNA Technologies' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Tecan Group's patents, leaving the institution rulings in place.

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2024-01506

Integrated DNA Technologies sought IPR of Tecan Genomics' patent covering nucleic acid technologies. The patent owner filed a terminal disclaimer of the entire patent, prompting the Board to grant an adverse judgment and terminate the proceeding.