US PTAB IP Litigation

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00223

The USPTO granted AMD and Pensando’s request for rehearing, vacated the earlier discretionary denial of institution, and sent the IPR back to the Board for a standard institution decision.

KLIPSTA PTY LTD v.Albanese, Lindsay

· IPR2025-00346

Klipsta PTY LTD petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,413,047, asserting that the hat‑holding system is fully anticipated or obvious over numerous international prior‑art references.

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

· IPR2025-00253

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all ten claims of X1 Discovery’s 2008 ‘Methods and Systems for Search Indexing’ patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references such as Lotus Notes, Entourage, and academic works.

patent instituted · Dec 19, 2024

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00223

AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,985,943, which covers FPGA‑based programmable logic devices for data‑flow processing in servers. The petition asserts obviousness over six prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial.

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

· IPR2025-00253

Microsoft Corporation successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against X1 Discovery's patent on Information Retrieval/Search Indexing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing under § 103, specifically regarding the combination of prior art references (Wilcox, Londergan, Raskin, Wu).

patent instituted · Dec 19, 2024

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00223

Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against XtreamEdge regarding a PLD patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims. The Board found that the combination of prior art references Seshadri and Biederman provided sufficient grounds for challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00311

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks PTAB institution of an IPR against Stratasys’s 3D‑printer patent, arguing the Board properly weighed Fintiv factors and that broad stipulations prevent duplicate litigation. The Patent Owner contests, but the petitioner emphasizes efficiency and fairness.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

Tessell, Inc. petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPR against Nutanix, arguing the Director misapplied assignor estoppel under 35 U.S.C. §314(a). The brief cites Federal Circuit precedent that assignor estoppel cannot block IPRs.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00311

Stratasys seeks Director review to overturn a PTAB decision that instituted an IPR challenging 16 claims of its 3D‑printing patent. The owner argues the Panel misapplied the Fintiv factors and over‑relied on stipulations, violating recent USPTO guidance.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

patent denied · Dec 18, 2024

Tessell, Inc. filed a fee transmittal to request Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00322 concerning Nutanix’s patent 11,010,336. The filing includes payment of $452 and asserts small and micro entity status.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

The PTAB denied Tessell’s request for Director Review of the earlier decision that denied institution of the IPR against Nutanix’s patent. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

Tessell has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑23 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent 11,010,336, arguing obviousness over prior‑art database‑provisioning UIs and hyperconverged infrastructure. The petition also argues that the Board lacks discretionary grounds to deny institution.

patent instituted · Dec 18, 2024

GOOGLE LLC v.EscapeX IP LLC

· IPR2025-00337

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of EscapeX’s ’687 patent covering social‑media engagement monetization. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and meets the statutory threshold for institution.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00311

The PTAB institution decision found Petitioner's arguments of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 sufficiently meritorious to proceed. The Board specifically noted that Claim 1 was likely unpatentable over Mazumder and Mori, adopting the petitioner’s definition of ordinary skill in the art.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Dec 18, 2024

GOOGLE LLC v.EscapeX IP LLC

· IPR2025-00337

Google LLC successfully invalidated EscapeX IP LLC's patent (10474687) in the PTAB, finding all 24 claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board relied on combinations of prior art references like Fuloria and Andler to demonstrate that the claimed content engagement systems were predictable advancements in social networking technology.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00321

Stratasys seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB panel’s decision instituting inter partes review of eight claims of its 3‑D‑printer patent. The owner argues the panel misapplied the Fintiv factors and ignored the Guidance Memorandum, warranting a denial of institution under § 314(a).

patent denied · Dec 17, 2024

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00321

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks institution of its IPR against Stratasys’s 3D‑printer patent, arguing the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that its broad stipulations block further invalidity attacks. The petitioner urges the Board to reject a discretionary denial and proceed with the review.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00321

The USPTO Director denied petitions for review of institution decisions in three IPRs challenging Stratasys patents, including U.S. Patent 9,421,713. The denial leaves the institution decisions standing.

patent terminated or settled · Dec 17, 2024

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

· IPR2025-00250

Amazon and NL Giken settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,094,236 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.

patent terminated or settled · Dec 17, 2024

ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2025-00304

ASUS filed a motion to withdraw its IPR petition against VideoLabs' patent after related Roku IPRs were settled, rendering its joinder motions moot. The Board will decide on the withdrawal request.

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

· IPR2025-00250

Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00250 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent holder NL Giken over U.S. Patent 8,094,236. The motion argues that termination is appropriate given the early stage of the proceeding and public policy favoring settlement.

patent denied · Dec 17, 2024

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00215

The PTAB denied Phison's request for post‑grant review of claims 1‑6 of U.S. Patent 11,854,612, finding the petitioner failed to show any claim was likely unpatentable.

patent denied · Dec 17, 2024

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00215

The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ petition for post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger failed to meet the ‘more likely than not’ burden. The Board upheld the patent’s claims across all seven challenged claims.