US PTAB IP Litigation

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

Merck’s petition challenges Halozyme’s claims to modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing lack of written description and enablement. The reply reinforces these arguments with case law and scientific exhibits.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

patent instituted · Oct 12, 2024

Merck requests Director Review to deny institution of a PTAB post‑grant review of Halozyme’s ‘262 patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing the Board misapplied eligibility rules and imported a functional limitation into the claim construction.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

Merck defends the institution of a PGR covering modified PH20 enzymes, rejecting Halozyme’s eligibility, claim‑construction, and Fintiv arguments. The response urges the Director to uphold the Board’s earlier institution decision.

patent terminated or settled · Oct 12, 2024

Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2025-00276

NormShield and BitSight have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00276 concerning patent 11,777,976. The parties cite a settlement agreement and argue that early dismissal saves costs and resources.

Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2025-00276

Normshield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement that led the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00276 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Oct 12, 2024

Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,708,618 before the trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint termination motion and treated the settlement documents as confidential.

Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

patent terminated or settled · Oct 12, 2024

Lenovo and Ericsson filed a joint request for their settlement agreements to be kept confidential under PTAB rules.

Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

Lenovo and Ericsson have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,708,618 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, ending the proceeding before any institution decision.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s 13 claims covering PH20 hyaluronidase variants, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness. The petition seeks to have the claims declared unpatentable.

Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2025-00276

Normshield has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight’s 11,777,976 patent covering methods for generating composite security ratings. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art from Tippett and McGovern, supported by extensive public‑domain cybersecurity references.

Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

patent instituted · Oct 12, 2024

Lenovo has filed an IPR petition challenging Ericsson’s U.S. Patent 10,708,618 covering reference‑picture signaling in video codecs. The petition argues that all 19 claims are obvious over earlier video‑coding disclosures (Mulroy, H.264/AVC, and Raveendran) and requests the Board to institute the review despite parallel litigation.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s claims regarding modified PH20 polypeptides in a PTAB decision. The Board instituted trial based on enablement and written description grounds, finding that the broad genus of claimed molecules required undue experimentation to identify active variants.

QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2025-00029

The PTAB notified QIAGEN that Tecan’s Director Review request for IPR2025-00029 is pending. QIAGEN has five days to submit a concise, five‑page response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.

patent denied · Oct 10, 2024

QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2025-00028

Tecan seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of QIAGEN’s IPR, arguing the Board abused discretion, over‑relied on expert testimony, and allowed duplicate petitions. The request targets the institution decision for patent No. 10,036,012 covering NGS genotyping methods.

QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2025-00027

The Director denied QIAGEN's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00027, leaving the institution standing. No patentability arguments were revisited.

QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG

· IPR2025-00027

QIAGEN’s petition challenges Tecan’s request for discretionary denial of a Director Review, arguing that the General Plastic factors do not support denial when multiple unrelated parties file IPRs. The Board is urged to reject Tecan’s request as procedurally improper and unsupported by precedent.