US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-00422

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 28 claims of U.S. Patent 10,668,430 covering mercury‑removal technology for coal‑fired power plants. The petition relies on obviousness and anticipation arguments over four prior‑art references and urges the Board not to deny institution under §§314(a) and 325(d).

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

· IPR2025-00423

Berkshire Hathaway Energy group petitions the PTAB to institute IPR of U.S. Patent 10,668,430 covering mercury removal methods, arguing obviousness and lack of priority support.

patent instituted · Nov 2, 2025

Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.

· IPR2025-00605

Xencor has filed an IPR petition challenging all seven claims of Merus’s ’859 bispecific antibody patent, asserting anticipation by Desjarlais and Moore and obviousness over Lazar and Kannan. The petitioner seeks institution and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.

Xencor, Inc. v.Merus N.V.

· IPR2025-00604

Xencor, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Merus N.V.'s patent (9358286) concerning heterodimeric Ig-like molecules. The Board found sufficient evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, advancing the dispute into the substantive review phase.

patent instituted · Nov 2, 2025

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.

· IPR2025-00598

Yealink successfully petitioned to invalidate claims of Barco N.V.'s '347 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The Board found that combinations of prior art references taught all limitations for key claims related to unified communications systems.

patent instituted · Nov 2, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00423

The Director reviewed multiple IPRs challenging several patents and issued an Order supplementing a prior remand. The key issue addressed is the permissibility of multiple petitions challenging the same patent.

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

· IPR2025-00422

The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioners regarding claims covering flue gas pollutant removal. The Board addressed both anticipation and obviousness grounds, concluding that the combination of prior art references was sufficiently motivated to render the asserted claims unpatentable.

patent instituted · Oct 31, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00422

The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, finding that the Petitioners' real party in interest (RPI) status was not definitively proven. The cases are remanded to allow discovery on RPI and privity issues before determining if the petitions are time-barred.

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

· IPR2026-00107

Apple’s IPR against Samsung’s 10,313,077 patent on Wi‑Fi 802.11ax signaling was instituted. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim based on obviousness over Bharadwaj and Yu prior art.

Apple Inc. v.HBCU MESSAGING US LP

· IPR2026-00105

The USPTO denied Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of institution decisions across six IPRs, leaving the institution rulings intact and preserving Apple’s challenge to HBCU’s patent.

patent instituted · Oct 31, 2025

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

· IPR2026-00107

Apple’s petition to invalidate a patent was denied by the PTAB because it failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 14 challenged claims. The Board found the obviousness arguments lacked the required particularity and rationale.

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

· IPR2026-00104

Apple’s petition challenges Samsung’s IPR against Wilus’s ’077 Wi‑Fi patent. Wilus seeks Director Review, arguing settled expectations and Samsung’s inconsistent indefiniteness positions merit denial of institution. The Board had previously instituted the IPR.

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.

· IPR2026-00051

Disney filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the IPR against Adeia Media’s patent 8,280,987 before the Board had instituted the trial. The motion argues the proceeding is still in a preliminary stage and seeks a speedy, cost‑effective termination.

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

patent terminated or settled · Oct 31, 2025

The PTAB Director Review denied institution of Samsung's IPR against Headwater's patent, citing the parallel proceeding's trial date as a decisive discretionary factor.

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

Headwater Research settled its patent claims against Apple, licensing the patents and withdrawing related allegations, while the broader litigation against Amazon continues.

Apple Inc. v.HBCU MESSAGING US LP

· IPR2026-00105

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,991,600, which covers methods for selecting message bearers on mobile devices. The petition relies on obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103, combining prior art from Horvath, Tsampalis, Kansal, and Dorenbosch. No claim constructions or institution decision are present at this stage.

Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC v.Adeia Media Holdings Inc.

· IPR2026-00051

Disney has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of U.S. Patent 8,280,987, alleging obviousness over CDN‑related prior art (Dilley, Russell) combined with Menon. The petition includes detailed claim‑construction arguments for key terms.

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claim 26 of Headwater Research’s ’359 patent, arguing that the claim is obvious over the Shell, Cole, and Flack references under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00048

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Headwater Research’s ’757 patent covering wireless offloading and network selection. The petition relies on prior‑art references Wynn, Karaoguz and Deshpande to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2026-00050

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Headwater’s 8,631,102 patent covering mobile‑hotspot forwarding services, citing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patent instituted · Oct 31, 2025

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

· IPR2026-00104

The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR petition filed by Apple Inc. against HBCU Messaging US LP, finding that Apple failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.

Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC