US PTAB IP Litigation

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

· IPR2024-00534

Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the Patent Owner’s request for Director Review, defending the Board’s anticipation and obviousness findings that rely on the prior‑art reference Sung'026 for its CMP pad‑dressing technology.

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00516

Aylo Freesites filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against DISH Technologies’ streaming patent, alleging misapplication of General Plastic factors and discretionary denial errors.

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00518

The USPTO Director denied Aylo Freesites' request for review of the denial to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies' patent 9,407,564, leaving the original institution decision intact.

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00516

Aylo Freesites Ltd seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against DISH Technologies’ multi-bitrate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored the strong prior art reference “Leaning.” The petition requests reversal and institution of the review.

Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00526

Bruker Spatial Biology and 10x Genomics settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,542,554, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review. The settlement agreement and related documents were ordered confidential.

2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v.The Ridge Wallet LLC

· IPR2024-00692

The Ridge Wallet and Mountain Voyage Co. settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,791,808, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00512

The USPTO Director denied Aylo Freesites' request for review of the PTAB's denial of institution in IPR2024-00512 against DISH Technologies.

Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

· IPR2024-00521

Dexcom and Abbott Diabetes Care have settled their dispute over a continuous glucose monitoring patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites a confidential settlement agreement and the lack of any Board decision on the merits.

patent instituted

Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC

· IPR2024-00511

Motorola Solutions and STA Group filed a joint motion requesting the PTAB keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion argues the agreement contains highly sensitive business information.

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00514

Aylo Freesites seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition challenging DISH Technologies’ multi-bitrate streaming patent. The petitioner argues the Board failed to consider the merits of the Leaning reference and misapplied General Plastic factors.

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00515

Aylo Freesites seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR petition against DISH Technologies' streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored the merits of the "Leaning" prior art.

Wealth, Inc. v.--

· PGR2026-00042

Wealth, Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Vanilla Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,353,917, alleging ineligibility, obviousness, indefiniteness, and an improper dependent claim. The petition relies on prior‑art references Racanelli, Bateman, Dintenfass, McMillen and Kwak.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

· IPR2024-00497

Cisco’s authorized response rebuts Umbra’s claim‑construction arguments, emphasizing that the Board’s interpretation of “end‑to‑end tunnel” aligns with the intrinsic record and that Umbra’s expert and prosecution‑history arguments lack support.

Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.

· IPR2024-00495

Aptiv has filed objections to more than 40 exhibits submitted by Microchip in IPR2024‑00495, arguing they are irrelevant, lack foundation, or contain hearsay. The objections cite Federal Rules of Evidence and seek to exclude the material from the trial that has already been instituted.

Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.

· IPR2024-00496

Microchip Technology challenges Aptiv’s USB‑hub patent, arguing the PTAB’s denial of institution was an abuse of discretion for failing to construe “having” and to analyze prior art. The petitioner seeks Director Review to overturn the decision.

Honeywell International Inc. v.DSM IP Assets, B.V. et al.

· IPR2024-00493

Honeywell seeks Director review of the PTAB’s denial of institution of its IPR against DSM’s colored‑suture patent. The petitioner contends the Board erred on patentable weight, combination rewriting, obvious‑to‑try analysis, and reasonable‑expectation‑of‑success standards. The request argues that the prior art makes the claims obvious and unpatentable.

Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.

· IPR2024-00489

Cortex MCP requests Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that cancelled 17 claims of its token‑payment patent. The owner contends the Board introduced a new obviousness theory not present in the petition, violating procedural rules and the APA.

Hyundai Motor America, Inc. v.Germ Dome Industries LLC

· PGR2026-00030

Hyundai Motor America has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Germ Dome’s UV sanitizing patent, alleging anticipation by a 2003 Japanese patent and obviousness over that reference alone and in combination with a later U.S. application. The petition relies on extensive claim‑by‑claim comparisons to prior art.

JACS Solutions, Inc. v.Global Tel*Link Corporation d/b/a ViaPath Technologies

· IPR2024-00484

JACS Solutions and Global Tel*Link jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00484 after reaching a settlement. The Board authorized the termination, ending the review of patent 9,030,292.

Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC

· IPR2024-00482

Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory business‑confidential provisions, seeking to separate it from the public IPR file.

Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC

· IPR2024-00481

The PTAB denied Dell, HP, and Asus’s request for rehearing of its earlier decision not to institute an IPR on patent 9,563,229. The Board concluded the petitioners failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly regarding the accelerometer claim limitations.

Biocon Biologics Limited et al. v.--

· PGR2026-00039

Biocon has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate all 38 claims of Regeneron’s ‘036 anti‑VEGF eye‑treatment patent, alleging obviousness over prior art and lack of written description.

Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC

· IPR2024-00482

Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,317,733 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.