US PTAB IP Litigation

Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.

· IPR2025-00350

The PTAB notified parties that Director Review requests for three IPRs have been received. The petitioner has five business days to submit a concise response limited to the raised issues, with no new evidence allowed.

patent denied · Dec 20, 2024

Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.

· IPR2025-00349

The PTAB issued an institution decision for IPR2025-00349 on June 13, 2025. A later director‑review request by the patent owner was filed after the 14‑day deadline and was deemed untimely, so the Board will not consider it.

Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2025-00347

The USPTO denied Webgroup Czech Republic's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs challenging DISH Technologies patents.

Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2025-00347

The PTAB instituted inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent (claims 1‑16) and granted joinder to Webgroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates, aligning the case with the earlier fuboTV/MasterClass IPR.

Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.

patent terminated or settled · Dec 20, 2024

Microsoft and EyesMatch filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking federal statutes. The Board had previously authorized the filing, and the parties seek limited disclosure only to government agencies or parties with good cause.

Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.

· IPR2025-00296

Microsoft and EyesMatch have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,982,110, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.

patent terminated or settled · Dec 20, 2024

Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.

Microsoft and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,982,109. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential business information.

Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.

patent terminated or settled · Dec 20, 2024

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Microsoft’s challenge to all 18 claims of EyesMatch’s ’109 patent and granted Microsoft’s motion to join the earlier IPR2024‑00856, consolidating the proceedings.

Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.

· IPR2025-00296

Microsoft and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,982,110 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential.

patent denied · Dec 20, 2024

Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.

· IPR2025-00349

Stingray Group and Stingray Music contest a late Director review request concerning a music‑licensing patent, urging the PTAB to deny the request on procedural and substantive grounds. The petitioners highlight the patent’s lack of commercialization and the improper submission of new evidence.

Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.

· IPR2025-00254

The PTAB denied X1 Discovery’s request for an extension to file Director Review briefs in three IPRs against Microsoft, finding no good cause and emphasizing the need for timely filing.

Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.

· IPR2025-00350

Stingray Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all claims of U.S. Patent 10,524,002, arguing they are obvious or anticipated by earlier web‑broadcast technologies. The petition cites Avellan, Ma, Fain, and Wannamaker as prior art and requests that the Board institute the review.

Microsoft Corporation v.ParTec AG

· IPR2025-00318

Microsoft seeks to invalidate ParTec’s 11,537,442 patent covering dynamic task allocation in heterogeneous clusters, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lippert, Budenske, and Kambatla. The petition also challenges a potential Fintiv denial.

Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.

· IPR2025-00254

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of X1 Discovery’s U.S. Patent No. 10,552,490 covering search indexing. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Lotus Notes, Raskin, Wu, Entourage, True, and Baeza‑Yates references and urges the Board not to deny institution.

Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.

· IPR2025-00349

The PTAB granted institution for the IPR against U.S. Patent 10,123,074, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Avellan. The decision confirmed that 'content provider' does not require originating the request.

Microsoft Corporation v.ParTec AG

· IPR2025-00318

Microsoft Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against ParTec AG's patent, challenging claims related to heterogeneous computing and dynamic task remapping. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art combinations (Lippert, Budenske, Kambatla).

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Dec 20, 2024

Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.

· IPR2025-00255

Microsoft Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against X1 Discovery's patent over information retrieval claims. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness based on a combination of prior art references, including Wilcox and Londergan. This decision allows Microsoft to proceed with challenging the validity of key search indexing patents.

Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2025-00348

The PTAB found that the patent claims were largely obvious over prior art references Leaning and Gamble in the field of Adaptive Bitrate Streaming. Specifically, Claims 2 and 9 were deemed obvious when combining Leaning with Gamble's TCP protocols.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Dec 20, 2024

Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2025-00347

The PTAB found that all 16 claims of the patent are unpatentable over prior art references, Leaning and Gamble. The Board concluded that the combination of references rendered specific claims obvious, while other claims were anticipated by Leaning alone.

patent all challenged claims upheld · Dec 20, 2024

Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.