US PTAB IP Litigation

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Serendia seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR against its dermatology device patent after the ITC affirmed the patent’s validity, arguing the Board abused discretion and that extraordinary circumstances exist.

Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC

· IPR2024-00430

Comcast’s rehearing request was partially granted: the PTAB corrected a misstatement in claim 4 but upheld the unpatentability of all 24 challenged claims of Entropic’s broadband OFDMA probe patent.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· PGR2025-00063

Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent (12,268,475) on obviousness grounds, relying on prior art such as Lisogurski, Tran, LeBoeuf and Carlson.

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

EndyMed Medical and Serendia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,480,836 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding before any oral hearing or final decision.

ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company

· IPR2024-00671

The Noco Company seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that found eight of its USB‑charging jump‑starter claims unpatentable, arguing the Board misapplied obviousness analysis and ignored key evidence.

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

Endymed Medical and Serendia settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,480,836, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.

Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.

· PGR2025-00054

Straumann USA has filed a post‑grant review petition against Smart Denture Conversions’ U.S. Patent 12,156,781 covering dental implant fasteners. The petition alleges indefiniteness, lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over several prior‑art references. Straumann seeks institution of the review and cancellation of all 16 claims.

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR for Jeisys Medical Inc. after the parties settled their dispute. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential, and the proceeding remains open only for EndyMed petitioners.

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

Ilooda and Serendia filed a joint motion to terminate Ilooda's participation in an IPR over a dermatology device patent, citing a settlement that resolves the dispute.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00670

Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,607,407 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

Jeisys Medical and Serendia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,480,836 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding before any substantive briefing or hearing.

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

· IPR2024-00286

Google files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Motion Offense’s file‑sharing patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Houston, Garcia and Wu. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

Almendra Pte. Ltd. et al. v.Fienile AgronecÃ³cios LTDA

· PGR2025-00055

Almendra Pte. Ltd. has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,089,543 B2, asserting indefiniteness, lack of enablement, abstract‑idea ineligibility, and obviousness over Rosen and Richardville. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑7.

Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC

· IPR2024-00566

Arm Limited and ICPillar LLC settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,367,657, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement and dismissed the proceedings.

Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation

· IPR2024-00668

Nintendo’s reply argues that the ’648 patent’s preamble is non‑limiting and that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. It also attacks the patent owner’s § 315(b) time‑bar defense.

patent denied

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.

· IPR2024-00679

The USPTO denied Cisco’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00679, maintaining the Board’s original ruling against InfoExpress’s patent.

patent denied

Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation

· IPR2024-00668

Nintendo’s IPR against American GNC’s 6,671,648 patent was denied. The Board upheld its finding that claims 1 and 4 are obvious over Smith and Tingleff references, and rejected Nintendo’s secondary‑consideration and real‑party‑in‑interest arguments.

Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation

· IPR2024-00668

American GNC requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found its foundational MEMS‑based IMU patent obvious. The patent owner alleges claim‑construction errors and ignored non‑obviousness evidence, while Nintendo relied on multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.

Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation

· IPR2024-00667

Nintendo filed an authorized response urging denial of a Director Review request on the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found its IMU‑related claims obvious. The brief emphasizes the Board’s thorough analysis, weak secondary‑consideration evidence, and lack of a real‑party‑in‑interest claim.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC

· IPR2024-00511

Motorola Solutions and STA Group settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,319,852, leading to a joint motion that terminated the proceeding. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.

Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation

· IPR2024-00667

Nintendo’s reply argues that claims 1 and 3 of American GNC’s MEMS gyroscope patent are obvious over several prior‑art references, supported by extensive expert testimony, and rejects the Patent Owner’s time‑bar and secondary‑consideration defenses.

SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al. v.Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00385

Chevron and Scout filed a joint motion to stay Pilot's infringement suit while the PTAB reviews the disputed patent in IPR2024-00385. The district court granted the stay, administratively closing the case pending the PTAB's final written decision.

AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.

· IPR2024-00644

Daingean Technologies Ltd. opposes AT&T and co‑petitioners' IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,134,400, arguing the cited reference is not prior art and fails to teach the claimed SRB configurations, urging the Board to deny institution.