US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 157 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent terminated or settled · Jan 17, 2025
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00278
MidAmerican Energy Company and patent owner Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,343,114, prompting a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to MidAmerican. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
patent instituted · Jan 17, 2025
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00274
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES, Inc.'s 10,343,114 B2 mercury‑removal patent after Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claims 1‑30, citing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00274
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its subsidiaries filed a joint motion with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement with BirchTech Corp. confidential and to terminate the IPR proceeding for MidAmerican Energy.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00274
BirchTech Corp. seeks Director Review of the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR against its mercury‑control patent, arguing misapplication of the time‑bar rule and that the MDL already resolves the dispute efficiently.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 17, 2025
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00274
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s subsidiaries and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,343,114. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review concerning WEC Energy Group, citing settlement and statutory provisions.
patent terminated or settled · Jan 17, 2025
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00278
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates moved to terminate IPR 2025-00278 after reaching a confidential settlement with Birchtech Corp. The parties seek to keep the settlement agreement sealed under statutory confidentiality provisions.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00274
Court decision.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Therabody, Inc. v.DataFeel, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00026
Therabody has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of DataFeel’s 12,036,174 patent covering percussive massage devices. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a lack of written description and enablement. It also argues the Board should not invoke the Fintiv discretionary denial provision.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00017
Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,110,520 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness over prior art. The Board has not yet ruled.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
· PGR2025-00028
Alliance Laundry Systems petitions the PTAB to review PayRange’s 2024 patent covering mobile‑device‑driven vending‑machine payments. The petition asserts anticipation, obviousness, and § 101 ineligibility for all 20 claims, citing Low, Arora, Freeny and Casey as prior art.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v.PayRange LLC.
· PGR2025-00027
Alliance Laundry Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate PayRange’s 2024 mobile‑payment patent covering vending‑machine transactions, arguing obviousness and patent‑ineligibility. The petition also rebuts any discretionary denial.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
· IPR2025-00464
Padagis US LLC seeks IPR cancellation of Neurelis' 8,895,546 patent covering intranasal benzodiazepine solutions, arguing obviousness over Gwozdz and Meezan and invoking collateral estoppel from a prior IPR.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2025-00468
WebGroup Czech Republic challenges DISH's adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting that 27 claims are obvious over earlier streaming patents and standards. The petition seeks institution of an IPR, arguing strong merits and favorable discretionary factors.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
· IPR2025-00441
Wiz, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking institution of a challenge to all 34 claims of Orca Security’s cloud‑snapshot patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
· IPR2025-00503
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging KPN’s 8,660,560 patent covering automatic neighbor‑cell list updates, asserting obviousness over multiple Ericsson patents and 3GPP standards.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Coretronic Corporation v.Maxell, LTD.
· IPR2025-00477
Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑3 of Maxell’s 7,850,313 projector patent, arguing the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Google LLC v.BrodTi Inc.
· IPR2025-00472
Google LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate BrodTi Inc.’s 11,416,898 patent covering internet‑based project financing via advertising. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
· IPR2025-00470
Petitioners seek cancellation of all 25 claims of DISH’s multi‑bitrate streaming patent, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art systems.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Padagis US LLC et al. v.Neurelis, Inc.
· IPR2025-00465
Padagis seeks to invalidate Neurelis' 11,241,414 patent covering intranasal benzodiazepine solutions, arguing obviousness over Gwozdz and Meezan and invoking collateral estoppel from a prior IPR.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
· IPR2025-00451
AT&T and Nokia seek IPR cancellation of a G.fast‑related patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art Bingham, Strobel, and ITU contributions Wei and Kuipers.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
· IPR2025-00442
Wiz, Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging Orca Security’s U.S. Patent No. 11,627,154, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Keren and Morgan. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2025-00435
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Applied Optoelectronics' optical‑transceiver patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.
· IPR2025-00433
Cambridge Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 of Applied Optoelectronics’ 9,523,826 patent covering pluggable optical transceiver modules, citing Wu and Mizue as anticipatory prior art.
patent · Jan 17, 2025
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
· IPR2025-00340
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of U.S. Patent 6,894,639, arguing they are obvious over earlier image‑processing patents (Barnard, Knecht, Lawrence). The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
