US PTAB IP Litigation

Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

Arm Ltd filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial that blocked an IPR on its multicore processor patent (U.S. 8,984,228). The petition cites the settlement of related litigation and prior Board findings that identical claims were invalid over the Sinharoy reference.

Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The Board is asked to restrict access to the agreement to federal agencies or parties with good cause.

Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

patent terminated or settled · Dec 13, 2024

Arm Ltd petitions the PTAB Director to vacate a discretionary denial and institute an IPR on its multicore processor patent after the related Texas lawsuit was settled and dismissed.

Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.

· IPR2025-00261

Koki Holdings America and Kyocera Senco settled their IPR dispute over four patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00298

Tessell has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑36 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent 11,860,818, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art database UI disclosures. The petition argues that the examiner never considered the cited references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

patent denied · Dec 13, 2024

Lam Research Corp. v.Inpria Corporation

· IPR2025-00256

Lam Research has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Inpria’s ’048 patent covering EUV photoresist deposition. The petition relies on obviousness and anticipation grounds over Meyers, Weidman, Berney, and Molloy, and raises a new‑matter issue. The Board must decide whether to institute the trial.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00298

The Director denied institution of an IPR in the Tessell v. Nutanix case, citing administrative inefficiency because the petitioner includes nearly all inventors of the challenged patent.

patent denied · Dec 13, 2024

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.

· IPR2025-00289

Imperative Care challenges Inari Medical's hemostasis valve patent (11554005) on obviousness grounds. The PTAB instituted the IPR, requiring further review of claims 1-15 based on prior art combinations.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00294

The PTAB denied Micron's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory because the patent owner had successfully filed a statutory disclaimer covering all challenged claims related to 3D memory devices.

patent denied · Dec 13, 2024

Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.

· IPR2025-00262

Koki Holdings America Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc., challenging 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10478954 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board's decision was supported by preliminary claim construction findings that favored the Petitioner’s argument regarding design motivation and prior art combination.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00244

Micron Technology's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Micron failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits, specifically regarding obviousness over prior art Costa in 3D memory technology.

Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

Arm Ltd et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC's patent, challenging claims based on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board accepted that a reasonable likelihood of prevailing existed on at least one claim challenge, moving the case into the merits phase.

Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

patent terminated or settled · Dec 12, 2024

The Director granted review and vacated a denial of institution for Arm Ltd against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC, referring the IPR back to the Board after parallel litigation was dismissed.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.

· IPR2025-00302

Intel, Lenovo, and Motorola filed a motion to dismiss their IPR against Collision Communications. The PTAB granted the motion, dismissing the petition and terminating the proceeding.

Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.

· IPR2025-00284

Lenovo and Motorola filed a motion to dismiss their IPR against Collision Communications, arguing good cause to withdraw before institution, citing prior PTAB precedent and a denied related Samsung IPR.

Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation

Entegris contests Inpria’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of an IPR, arguing that Lam Research is not a real party in interest and that Inpria’s claim‑construction arguments are untimely.

Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation

Entegris seeks rehearing of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Inpria’s ’903 patent covering semiconductor‑material compounds. The petition argues the Director’s retroactive rescission of guidance and misapplication of Fintiv factors violated statutory and due‑process requirements.

Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation

Inpria seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its ’903 patent, arguing Entegris failed the real‑party‑in‑interest test and that the Board’s claim construction conflicts with a Delaware court ruling.

Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation

patent terminated or settled · Dec 12, 2024

The USPTO granted Entegris’s rehearing request, vacated the earlier discretionary denial, and sent the IPR on Inpria’s lithography patent back to the Board for institution after a related district‑court case settled.

Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation

Entegris and Inpria have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,673,903 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board had previously instituted the proceeding but no merits were decided.

Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation

patent instituted · Dec 12, 2024

Entegris filed a motion to seal its confidential response to Inpria’s request for director review in IPR2025-00267, citing the need to protect trade‑secret information.

Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation

The PTAB instituted inter partes review of Entegris' challenge to Inpria's 11,673,903 patent covering high‑purity organotin compounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.

Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation

Entegris and Inpria filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, arguing that disclosure would harm their business interests.