US PTAB IP Litigation

Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC

· IPR2024-01129

Nike and SherryWear entered a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate the pending IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,869,510.

Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01220

Olympus and other camera makers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading to the termination of four inter partes review proceedings covering patent 10,873,685. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.

patent denied

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that had vacated the institution of IPR2024‑01208. The Board held the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactive and that Motorola offered no specific error or proper new evidence.

Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2024-01221

Early Warning Services petitions the PTAB Director to vacate an institution decision that relied on post‑petition evidence. The Patent Owner claims the Board violated statutory thresholds and due‑process requirements.

Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC

· IPR2024-01129

Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,510 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR, citing 35 U.S.C. §317.

Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC

· IPR2024-01220

Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in their Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.

Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC

· IPR2024-01127

Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,551 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet decided the merits, allowing termination under §317.

Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01125

Nike and SherryWear settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,808,036 B1. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld

Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC

· IPR2024-01127

Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate a series of inter partes reviews, including the one covering patent 10,219,551. The termination was entered under 35 U.S.C. §317 after the trials had already been instituted.

Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

· IPR2024-01219

The PTAB found 22 of the 23 claims of The Noco Company's jump‑starter patent unpatentable in an IPR filed by Deltran USA LLC, leaving only claim 11 intact.

Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC

· IPR2024-01212

Stratus Medical’s response contends that Avanos’s IPR challenges are legally and technically deficient, emphasizing lack of enablement, teaching away, and strong objective indicia of non‑obviousness.

Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC

· IPR2024-01126

Nike and SherryWear settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,550 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.

patent instituted

Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

· IPR2024-01219

The PTAB granted ADC Solutions Auto LLC’s petition to institute an inter partes review of The Noco Company’s portable jump‑starter patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one claim.

Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.

· IPR2024-01235

Cambridge Enterprise has requested a Director Review of IPR2024-01235. Pascal Technologies may respond within five business days, limited to five pages and without new evidence. The Board will decide whether to grant the review.

Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01125

Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,808,036 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317.

Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC

· IPR2024-01124

Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate eight related IPRs without deciding the merits.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Motorola filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01208 against Stellar’s request for Director Review, emphasizing proper application of Fintiv factors and Sotera stipulation. The Board’s decision to institute remains unchallenged.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

· IPR2024-01206

Motorola has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPRs covering body‑camera patents. The company argues the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violates the APA and due‑process, and it is willing to expand its stipulation to satisfy discretionary standards.

Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC

· IPR2024-01211

Stratus Medical’s response to Avanos’s IPR argues that the petition’s obviousness challenges fail because the alleged combination is vague, non‑enabling, and not taught by the prior art, while emphasizing commercial success and industry praise as objective indicia of non‑obviousness.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Motorola seeks rehearing to overturn the Director’s denial of institution for its body‑camera patents, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violates the APA and due process. The company offers an expanded stipulation to satisfy the Board’s discretionary analysis.

patent denied

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

· IPR2024-01206

The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that vacated the institution of four IPRs, including the challenge to Stellar's patent 9,485,471. The Board held the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactively applicable and the petitioner offered no new substantive evidence.

patent denied

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

· IPR2024-01207

Motorola’s request for rehearing of a PTAB Director Review Decision was denied. The Board held that the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactive and that Motorola had already had a chance to argue under the prior guidance.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC

Stellar, LLC requests Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Motorola’s patents, alleging misapplication of Fintiv factor analysis and improper discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).