US PTAB IP Litigation

Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.

· IPR2025-00442

The PTAB denied Wiz, Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against Orca Security Ltd., because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims.

patent instituted · Jan 17, 2025

Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.

· IPR2025-00441

The PTAB denied Wiz, Inc.'s IPR petition against Orca Security Ltd. because the Patent Owner had disclaimed all challenged claims prior to institution.

Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00437

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Cambridge Industries against Applied Optoelectronics over a patent covering optical isolator arrays, focusing on anticipation and obviousness grounds.

Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00434

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against Applied Optoelectronics Inc.'s patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation grounds (35 U.S.C. § 102). The Board specifically rejected arguments based on prior art references Shen and Soldano regarding optical receiving devices.

patent instituted · Jan 17, 2025

Cambridge Industries USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00436

The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cambridge Industries against Applied Optoelectronics' optical patent (10313024), finding the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success based on prior art references Mizobuchi and Akashi.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00340

Tesla challenged the validity of a target recognition patent (6894639) before the PTAB. The Board granted institution, finding that the Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in challenging at least one claim under § 103 over Barnard. This decision moves the case forward for substantive review on obviousness grounds.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00340

The Director denied institution of an IPR against Tesla's patent (6894639) after reviewing the case, citing inconsistent claim construction arguments made by Tesla in district court versus before the PTAB.

patent · Jan 17, 2025

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00278

The Director remanded multiple parallel IPRs challenging several patents to the Board, instructing them to consolidate proceedings and maintain only one petition per patent based on RPI determinations.

patent instituted · Jan 17, 2025

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00278

The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, but remanded multiple IPR cases to allow discovery on complex RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses.

patent · Jan 17, 2025

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00274

The Director remanded multiple IPRs involving Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Birchtech Corp., limiting the scope of challenges to one petition per patent based on precedent regarding parallel proceedings.

Microsoft Corporation v.Sterling Computers Corporation

· IPR2025-00270

The PTAB granted institution for Microsoft's IPR against Sterling Computers, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for at least one claim (Claim 13). The Board adopted a construction of 'relational references' as simple pointers, rejecting the Patent Owner's requirement for a full relational model.

patent · Jan 17, 2025

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00274

The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, remanding multiple IPR cases to allow discovery on Real Parties in Interest (RPI) and privity issues necessary to resolve time-bar defenses.

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

patent denied · Jan 16, 2025

Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Ningde Amperex's lithium‑ion battery separator patent. The petitioner argues the panel misapplied inherency law, treated an apparatus claim as a method step, and used an improper evidentiary standard.

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

patent denied · Jan 16, 2025

Ningde Amperex Technology successfully defended its lithium‑battery separator patent as the PTAB denied the challenger’s request for Director Review. The Board found the prior art did not disclose the required APDR values and rejected the petitioner’s expert approximations.

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00385 concerning battery patent 10,964,927. The denial leaves the original decision that the IPR was not instituted intact.

Multi-Color Corporation v.Brook & Whittle Ltd.

· PGR2025-00025

Multi-Color Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Brook & Whittle’s recyclable shrink‑label patent, alleging anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness.

Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation

· IPR2025-00440

Charles River Laboratories petitions the PTAB to invalidate claim 21 of Seikagaku’s ’318 patent on recombinant Factor C proteins, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and priority, and asserting obviousness over Mizumura combined with the ’498 PCT and over Mizumura combined with McClymont.

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

patent instituted · Jan 16, 2025

Zhuhai CosMX Battery petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑10 of Ningde Amperex’s ’927 lithium‑ion battery separator patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Nishikawa, Chen and Zhang. The petition seeks institution and a finding that all claims are unpatentable.

Multi-Color Corporation v.Brook & Whittle Ltd.

· PGR2025-00025

Multi-Color Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute review of claims 1-19 against Brook & Whittle Ltd.'s patent. The Board adopted a specific, technical construction for 'recyclable' based on prosecution history and found sufficient evidence across grounds including anticipation (102), obviousness (103), and indefiniteness (112).

patent instituted · Jan 16, 2025

Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation

· IPR2025-00440

Charles River Laboratories successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Seikagaku Corporation's patent (11236318) based on grounds of lack of written description and obviousness. The Board found sufficient evidence at this preliminary stage, allowing the challenge to proceed into full litigation.

patent denied · Jan 16, 2025

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.