US PTAB IP Litigation
5,620 annotated decisions
Page 113 of 235 · 5,620 total
patent · Dec 12, 2024
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
· IPR2025-00267
Entegris has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑10 of Inpria’s ’903 patent, asserting that the claimed high‑purity organotin compositions are fully disclosed in earlier literature. The petition challenges the patent on anticipation and obviousness grounds and argues that Inpria’s examiner‑era declarations were misleading.
patent instituted · Dec 12, 2024
X Corp. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
· IPR2025-00299
X Corp.'s IPR petition against Sterling Computers Corporation's patent (7716217) was instituted, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board found that combining Kircher and Krug would motivate a POSITA to improve relevance scoring in email content ranking.
patent denied · Dec 12, 2024
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2025-00301
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Intel and others against Collision Communications regarding wireless multiuser detection claims. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, noting that the parallel district court trial date was too close to the Board's statutory deadline.
patent denied · Dec 12, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
· IPR2025-00285
The PTAB denied Lenovo and Motorola's request to institute IPR against Collision Communications regarding patent 6947505. The denial was based on the Petitioner failing to show a reasonable likelihood of success, mirroring a prior adverse ruling in related proceedings.
patent · Dec 11, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00003
Halozyme has filed a Director Review request asking the PTAB to overturn its institution of a post‑grant review of the ’600 hyaluronidase protein patent, arguing procedural errors and an improper claim construction.
patent instituted · Dec 11, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00003
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC filed a response defending the institution of a post‑grant review of Halozyme’s enzyme patent. The brief rebuts Halozyme’s eligibility, claim‑construction, and Fintiv arguments, emphasizing that the Board’s earlier findings remain sound.
patent · Dec 11, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00003
Merck files a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s protein‑based contraceptive patent, arguing the claims lack written description and enablement. The reply emphasizes that the specification does not support the broad genus of modified PH20 polypeptides claimed.
patent denied · Dec 11, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00003
The USPTO Director denied Merck’s request for a review of the PTAB’s institution decisions in four Halozyme patent cases, leaving the institution findings intact.
patent · Dec 11, 2024
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00149
Fullthrottle Technologies contests Rocket Media’s IPR petition targeting claims 1‑36 of its ’219 patent. The owner argues the cited prior art fails to teach essential claim limitations and lacks a motivation to combine, and urges denial under § 314(a) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 11, 2024
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
· IPR2025-00174
Ericsson and Motorola Mobility have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,184,130 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent · Dec 11, 2024
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00148
Fullthrottle Technologies argues that Rocket Media’s IPR petition for claims 1‑20 of U.S. Patent 11,556,947 fails because the cited prior art lacks key limitations and there is no motivation to combine the references. The response also seeks discretionary denial under § 314(a) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 11, 2024
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
· IPR2025-00174
Ericsson and Motorola Mobility settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding.
patent · Dec 11, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00003
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Pat. 11,952,600, arguing that the claims lack written description, are not enabled, and are obvious over prior art.
patent · Dec 11, 2024
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
· IPR2024-01457
Kangxi Communication Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Skyworks’ 9,148,194 RF switch patent, asserting obviousness over the Huang and Seshimo references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
patent instituted · Dec 11, 2024
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00003
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent on modified PH20 polypeptides in a PGR proceeding. The Board found likelihood of prevailing based on arguments regarding the genus's scope and potential lack of enablement/obviousness.
patent instituted · Dec 11, 2024
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00148
The PTAB instituted trial on all 20 claims of the '947 patent, finding sufficient evidence that the claims are obvious over combinations of Doughty, Van Boucq, and Maginnis. The Board accepted the Petitioner's argument that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine these references for location tracking and targeted advertising purposes.
patent denied · Dec 11, 2024
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00149
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs lost its IPR challenge against Fullthrottle Technologies regarding location determination and advertising targeting. The PTAB denied institution because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over the cited prior art.
patent instituted · Dec 11, 2024
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
· IPR2025-00117
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Micron against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D NAND memory claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Kim, Park, and Fang.
patent instituted · Dec 11, 2024
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
· IPR2024-01457
Kangxi Communication Technologies challenged SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS' RF switch system patent (9148194) at the PTAB, arguing obviousness over prior art references Huang and Seshimo. The Board granted institution because the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-11 based on the Huang reference. This moves the dispute into the trial phase.
patent denied · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01180
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Headwater Research’s 9,271,184 patent on obviousness grounds was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach the specific blocking step required by the claims, failing the reasonable‑likelihood test.
patent · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01181
Lenovo and Motorola filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR against Headwater Research's patent 10,749,700. The motion relies on statutory confidentiality provisions.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01181
Lenovo and Motorola Mobility settled their IPR challenge to Headwater Research’s patent 10,749,700, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
patent denied · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01180
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Headwater Research’s ’184 patent on differential traffic control was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach the claimed blocking of Internet service requests, so no reasonable likelihood of unpatentability was shown.
patent terminated or settled · Dec 8, 2024
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
· IPR2024-01181
Lenovo and Motorola jointly moved with Headwater Research to terminate IPR 2024‑01181 after settling the dispute over Patent 10,749,700, including related district‑court litigation.
