US PTAB IP Litigation

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00084

Ericsson has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025‑00084, and the patent owner must respond within five days with a limited brief.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00197

Google and Samsung have filed a petition to invalidate all 19 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, relying on seven new §103 grounds that combine Randall, Wollrab, Obradovich, Sheha, Song, Mura‑Smith and McDonnell references. The petition argues the Board should institute the IPR and cancel the claims, noting no discretionary denial applies.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00188

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑10 of WSOU’s ’691 MPLS patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· IPR2025-00169

Kubota has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of Vermeer’s 9,321,386 patent covering compact tool carriers. The petition relies on foreign patents KR996 and JP705, plus U.S. patents Bares and Beltrami, to argue obviousness. Kubota also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· IPR2025-00168

Kubota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vermeer’s 9,321,386 patent covering compact tool carriers. The petition relies on Korean KR996, Japanese JP705, and U.S. Bares references to argue obviousness of claims 31‑49, 70‑79, and 86‑87. It also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· IPR2025-00167

Kubota seeks to invalidate Vermeer’s compact tool carrier patent by arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution of an IPR covering 31 claims.

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· IPR2025-00171

Kubota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vermeer’s U.S. Patent 10,202,266 covering compact tool carriers. The challenger relies on Korean patent KR996 and U.S. patents Bares and Beltrami to argue obviousness under §§102/103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is improper.

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· IPR2025-00170

Kubota has filed an IPR petition challenging all 36 claims of Vermeer’s ’750 patent covering compact tool carriers. The challenger relies on Korean patent KR996, and U.S. patents Bares and Beltrami to argue obviousness under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

· IPR2025-00157

ResMed has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cleveland Medical Devices' ’284 patent covering a networked PAP therapy system, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior PAP and telemedicine technologies.

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC

· IPR2025-00090

American Axle seeks IPR on Neapco’s 11,434,958 patent covering a joint‑assembly with an access window. The petition argues the claims are anticipated by the 2016 Jeep Renegade service manual and obvious over that manual combined with Krude ʼ422 and Sugiyama. No secondary considerations are shown, and the petitioner urges the Board to institute the IPR.

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00084

Ericsson and several industry partners have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 12 claims of U.S. Patent 11,219,000, which covers uplink control channel resource allocation in 5G NR. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art such as Yan, Takeda, Marinier, and a 3GPP submission, and challenges discretionary denial arguments.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00197

The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Samsung against Mullen Industries. The decision maintains the prior institution decisions across several patents.

Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00192

The PTAB denied Curio Bioscience's IPR challenge against Prognosys and 10X Genomics, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (102), obviousness (103), or written description (112). The Board upheld the validity of the challenged claims in spatial omics/assay systems technology.

patent instituted · Nov 15, 2024

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00188

The Director denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review in a Cisco Systems case, vacating the initial decision. The denial was based on procedural efficiency due to the proximity of a parallel district court trial.

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· IPR2025-00170

Kubota North America Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB not to issue a discretionary denial of its IPR petition against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent. The Board found that Kubota demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground, allowing the case to proceed to full examination.

patent instituted · Nov 15, 2024

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· IPR2025-00167

Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's '386 patent, asserting grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The Board found that the petitioner's arguments regarding prior art combinations were persuasive enough to overcome the Patent Owner's request for discretionary denial.

patent instituted · Nov 15, 2024

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

· IPR2025-00157

The PTAB denied ResMed Corp.'s Inter Partes Review petition against Cleveland Medical Devices' patent, citing prior filings and concerns over 'road-mapping'.

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00083

The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC's patent (No. 10638463) for obviousness over prior art including Takeda, Yan, and 3GPP R1-1711853. The petitioner group, comprising major wireless carriers and tech companies, successfully argued that the claimed method is unpatentable in 5G NR resource allocation.

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00084

The PTAB denied institution for an IPR concerning Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC's patent, citing the proximity and significant investment in related district court proceedings. This decision emphasizes efficiency considerations under Fintiv factors when parallel litigation is active.

Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.

Downing Wellhead Equipment seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s institution of a PGR covering 78 claims of its wellhead patent. The owner argues the proceeding is inefficient, cites misapplied prior‑art analysis, and alleges the Board ignored § 325(d) discretionary denial grounds.

Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.

patent denied · Nov 14, 2024

Intelligent Wellhead Systems filed a response defending the Board’s decision to institute review of its wellhead patent. The petitioner contends there was no abuse of discretion and that the Board correctly applied statutory standards, urging denial of the Patent Owner’s Director Review Request.

Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.

The USPTO denied Intelligent Wellhead Systems' request for Director Review of the institution decision on its wellhead patent, keeping the institution in place.

Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.

Downing Wellhead Equipment has requested a Director Review of a PGR challenge to its wellhead patent, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages and prohibiting new evidence.

Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.