US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-00389

Court decision.

Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation

· PGR2025-00023

Charles River Laboratories has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑10 of Seikagaku’s 11,959,109 patent covering recombinant endotoxin assay methods. The petition alleges lack of written description, lack of enablement, and anticipation by a 2019 publication.

SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00420

SAP America seeks an IPR on Valtrus’s 6,889,244 patent covering fault‑tolerant messaging, arguing the claims are obvious over Bowman, Vahalia and Tuxedo. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).

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

· IPR2025-00389

Zhuhai CosMX Battery has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Ningde Amperex’s U.S. Patent 11,923,498, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition argues no discretionary factors oppose institution.

SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00419

SAP America petitions the PTAB to invalidate Valtrus’s ’738 patent covering SIP fault‑tolerance methods, asserting obviousness over the Forissier patent. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a) is improper.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC

· IPR2025-00333

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sinotechnix’s ’873 patent covering side‑illumination LED lenses, asserting that multiple prior‑art references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims.

Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited

· IPR2025-00473

Charter Communications petitions the PTAB to invalidate Iarnach Technologies’ EPON configuration patent, asserting that all 32 claims are obvious over a body of prior art. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial would be improper under §§314 and 325(d).

NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.

· IPR2025-00455

NeoGenomics seeks IPR of Natera’s ’596 patent covering liquid‑biopsy methods, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple pre‑2015 publications and that the examiner erred. The petition also disputes any discretionary denial, urging the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.

Celltrion, Inc. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-00456

Celltrion seeks IPR institution to invalidate all 50 claims of Regeneron’s US 11,084,865, arguing anticipation by US432 and lack of written description for glycosylation and stability limits.

SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00417

SAP America petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Valtrus’s ’409 patent, asserting that all 17 claims are obvious over Khare and Kirkman. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

patent instituted · Jan 15, 2025

SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00416

SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 25 claims of Valtrus Innovations' 7,313,575 patent, arguing that the Chen IBM Redbooks publication makes those claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).

Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v.Seikagaku Corporation

· PGR2025-00023

Charles River Laboratories successfully petitioned to invalidate Seikagaku Corporation's patent claims related to endotoxin detection. The Board found grounds for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 112, specifically citing anticipation by a prior publication.

patent instituted · Jan 15, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00389

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co. successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of IPR proceedings against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.'s lithium-ion battery patent (11,923,498). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds over multiple prior art references.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 14, 2025

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00453

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00453 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over HydraFacial's facial treatment patent.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 14, 2025

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00453

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record, citing statutory confidentiality protections.

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00453

Eunsung Global Corp. and HydraFacial LLC settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate both IPRs before institution. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.

Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.

· IPR2025-00372

Kangxi Communications seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against Skyworks’ RF front‑end patent, alleging due‑process violations from retroactive policy changes. The petition contends that the Board improperly applied new Fintiv and “settled expectations” doctrines, and that the withdrawal of prior‑art defenses from a parallel ITC case should not trigger denial.

Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.

· IPR2025-00372

Skyworks seeks affirmation of the PTAB Director's denial of institution for an IPR filed by Kangxi over a wireless front‑end patent. The Patent Owner emphasizes the six Fintib factors and its settled expectations of validity to argue against institution.

Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.

· IPR2025-00373

Kangxi Communications seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against Skyworks’ RF front‑end patent, arguing that retroactive policy changes violated due process. The petition focuses on the withdrawal of prior‑art defenses in a parallel ITC case and the newly‑created “settled expectations” doctrine.

Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.

· IPR2025-00373

Skyworks successfully defended its wireless front‑end module patent as the PTAB denied institution of the IPR. The Board cited all six Fintiv factors and the patent owner’s settled expectations to justify the discretionary denial.

Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.

· IPR2025-00372

The USPTO denied Kangxi Communications’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00372, leaving Skyworks Solutions’ patent 9,917,563 unchallenged at the institution stage.

Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.

· IPR2025-00373

The USPTO Director denied the petition for review of its decision not to institute an IPR against Skyworks' patent, leaving the institution denial in place.

SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Valtrus Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00414

SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 18 claims of Valtrus’s ’182 data‑redundancy patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.