US PTAB IP Litigation

patent denied · Oct 21, 2024

Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC defends the Board’s denial of institution in IPR2025‑00036, arguing petitioners introduced new arguments and that the Board’s discretionary analysis under §314(a) was proper. The request for Director Review is contested and remains pending.

Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

The USPTO denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00036, leaving the original denial in place.

patent · Oct 21, 2024

Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

patent denied · Oct 21, 2024

Nokia, Ericsson, AT&T, Verizon and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Pegasus’s 5G slice‑aware handover patent, arguing obviousness over multiple 3GPP standards and that the prior art was not raised during prosecution.

Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

The PTAB denied institution of the IPR because the efficiency of ongoing parallel district court litigation outweighed the merits of the patent claims. The denial was based on the discretionary Fintiv factors, despite strong arguments from the petitioner regarding the lack of prior consideration for the grounds.

Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC

Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics filed a joint motion asking the PTB to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, separating them from the public patent file.

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00041

Google and Motorola settled their IPR against Multifold’s patent 9,058,153, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.

Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC

Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2025-00062. The PTAB granted the motion, ending the proceeding before any institution decision and keeping the settlement documents confidential.

Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Nokia, Ericsson, AT&T, Verizon and T‑Mobile have filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR targeting a Korean‑owned LTE patent. They argue the Board misapplied discretionary standards, ignored a Sotera stipulation, and failed to consider domestic economic impacts.

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00041

Motorola Mobility, Google, and Multifold International have jointly filed a request to keep their settlement covenants confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The request seeks to keep the settlement documents out of the public patent file.

Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC

Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,804,678 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet instituted the proceeding, and the parties cite public‑policy reasons for termination.

Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC opposes Nokia and other carriers' request for Director Review of the Board’s denial to institute an IPR. The owner asserts the petitioners raised new arguments and that the Board’s decision was not an abuse of discretion.

patent denied · Oct 18, 2024

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00041

Motorola Mobility, Google and Multifold International have resolved their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,058,153 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The parties submitted covenants not to sue and seek early termination for judicial economy.

Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

The USPTO Director denied the petition by Nokia and other telecom carriers to review the PTAB’s decision denying institution of IPRs against Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s patents.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01507

Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,996,693. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and partially treated the settlement documents as confidential.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01507

Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s patent 8,996,693 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and related regulations.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01503

Amazon and Nokia filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after it had been instituted, and the Board granted termination while keeping the settlement documents confidential.

Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC

Zepp Health has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 15 claims of Slyde Analytics’ smartwatch power‑mode patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also requests that the Board not deny institution under discretionary provisions.

Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00032

Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,563,338, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering EV charging, GUI interfaces, and HVAC control. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).

Arthrex, Inc. et al. v.Medshape, Inc.

· IPR2025-00053

Arthrex has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of Medshape’s ’222 bone‑fixation patent, arguing obviousness over Monassevitch and over a Bolesky‑Hoffman combination. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §314.

Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Nokia and four other telecom operators have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of six claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s U.S. Patent 10,616,932, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references (Lin1, Lin2, Zhang). The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d).

patent denied · Oct 18, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01507

Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,996,693 patent covering dynamic and static data processing. The petition asserts obviousness over IBM’s Foster and Williams publications and seeks cancellation of 18 claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Arthrex, Inc. et al. v.Medshape, Inc.

· IPR2025-00053

The PTAB denied Arthrex's IPR petition against Medshape's patent (7985222), citing the complex and overlapping nature of co-pending district court litigation.

patent instituted · Oct 18, 2024

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00040

Motorola and Google successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Multifold International for patent 9134756, focusing on dual-screen UI technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under both anticipation (Yook/Purcell) and obviousness grounds.

patent denied · Oct 18, 2024

Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC