US PTAB IP Litigation

Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00635

Fluidmaster requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found claims 8, 9, 12 and 13 of its toilet‑flush valve patent unpatentable. The patent owner argues the Board mis‑constructed the term “overflow tube” and that the cited prior art does not disclose it.

patent denied

Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00635

Fluidmaster successfully defended its toilet‑fill valve patent in an IPR Director Review, with the PTAB denying Danco’s request to overturn the Board’s claim construction and unpatentability findings.

Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.

· IPR2024-00646

Microchip Technology seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found all claims of its low‑quiescent‑current voltage regulator patent obvious. The patent owner contends the Board erred on motivation, KSR application, and teaching‑away analysis. Aptiv Services, the petitioner, argues the combination is obvious over the cited references.

Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC

· IPR2024-00659

Databricks submits a corrected certification of word count and updated certificate of service for its IPR against R2 Solutions’ patent 8,190,610.

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

· IPR2024-00385

Scout Energy Management and Chevron settled with Pilot Intellectual Property, resulting in a joint motion that terminated the IPR on patent 8,505,332. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.

Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. v.North Atlantic Imports, LLC

· IPR2024-00642

The IPR concerning U.S. Patent 10,660,473 was terminated after the petitioner and patent owner reached a settlement and jointly moved to dismiss the proceeding.

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

· IPR2024-00286

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Motion Offense’s ’353 patent, asserting that claims 1‑7 and 16 are obvious over prior‑art patents Houston and Garcia. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and seeks institution of the review.

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

· IPR2024-00677

CISCO Systems requested Director Review in IPR2024-00677 concerning patent 8,578,444 owned by InfoExpress; the Board will decide whether to grant the review.

TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.

· IPR2024-00630

Tesla seeks Director review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on its vehicle‑power‑management patent. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied the § 325(d) discretionary denial test, re‑hashing arguments already considered during prosecution.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld

TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.

· IPR2024-00630

iQar Inc. has filed a Director Review Request challenging the PTAB’s institution of its U.S. Patent 10,850,616, asserting misapplication of § 325(d) and lack of deference to the examiner’s § 112 analysis. The petition seeks to overturn the institution and set proper precedent for future panels.

Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00633

The PTAB corrected its Final Written Decision for IPR2024‑00633, confirming that 11 of the 20 challenged claims of Fluidmaster’s toilet‑valve patent are unpatentable, while the remaining nine claims remain patentable.

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

· IPR2024-00626

Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after the parties jointly requested termination and sought confidentiality for the settlement documents.

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

Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 B2. The PTAB granted the parties' joint motion to terminate the inter‑ partes review and treated the settlement documents as business‑confidential.

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

Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over a video‑capable device patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.

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

Amazon has filed a petition for rehearing, asking the Director to vacate the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Nokia’s video‑coding patent covering bi‑prediction. Nokia argues the Board erred under § 325(d) by revisiting arguments already considered during prosecution.

patent denied

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

The USPTO Director denied Amazon’s request for a Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nokia’s patent 11,805,267, leaving the institution rulings in place.

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

· IPR2024-00286

Google LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Motion Offense’s ’737 patent, asserting that claims 1‑5, 13 and 14 are obvious over Houston and Garcia patents. The petition argues discretionary denial is inappropriate and cites compelling evidence of unpatentability.

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

· IPR2024-00626

Amazon seeks rehearing to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Nokia’s video‑coding patent. Nokia argues the Board misapplied 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the prior art and arguments were already considered during prosecution.

Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.

· IPR2024-00621

Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The motion cites settlement and judicial economy as reasons for termination.

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

· PGR2025-00052

Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,264,345, which claims thousands of modified PH20 hyaluronidase polypeptides. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and obviousness. The Board must decide whether to institute the proceeding.

Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.

· IPR2024-00621

Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.

SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC

· IPR2024-00615

SAP America and ISIX IP jointly filed a motion requesting that their settlement agreement be kept confidential and separate from the patent file under statutory confidentiality provisions.