US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-00373

Kangxi Communications Technologies has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Skyworks' U.S. Patent 8,717,101 covering biasing circuits for RF power amplifiers. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Ishimaru publication and over Ishimaru combined with Harrison’s current‑mirror teaching, and opposes discretionary denial.

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

· IPR2025-00372

Kangxi Communications petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Skyworks' 9,917,563 patent, asserting that four claims are obvious over Ishimaru, Ichitsubo, and Harrison. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and argues discretionary denial is improper.

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00453

Eunsung Global Corp. petitions the PTAB to cancel HydraFacial's 11,446,477 skin‑treatment patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art references.

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

· IPR2025-00418

SAP America seeks an IPR to invalidate Valtrus’s 6,871,264 patent covering a multi‑processor cache allocation system, arguing the claims are obvious over earlier patents. The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).

patent · Jan 13, 2025

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 13, 2025

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations.

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 13, 2025

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 12,053,607 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board has not yet issued a final decision, and the parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB instituted a trial. The Board granted joint motions to terminate and to keep the settlement agreement confidential, ending the proceedings.

patent · Jan 13, 2025

Caihong Display Devices Co. Ltd. v.Corning Inc.

· IPR2025-00439

Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Corning’s 2010 glass‑substrate patent, asserting obviousness over Miwa and Bange and anticipation by Miwa. The petition includes an expert declaration and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

patent · Jan 13, 2025

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of HydraFacial’s ’607 skin‑treatment patent, arguing obviousness over a suite of prior‑art microdermabrasion references.

Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC

· IPR2026-00163

Medtronic petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑fusion patent owned by Moskowitz Family LLC, alleging the invention was already disclosed in earlier patents by Gordon, McLuen, and Michelson. The petition raises anticipation and obviousness grounds under §§ 102 and 103(a).

Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation

· IPR2025-01601

Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Brain Corp.’s U.S. Patent 10,379,539, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider well‑known navigation and obstacle‑avoidance techniques. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Reed Semiconductor Corp.

· IPR2026-00165

Monolithic Power Systems filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate four claims of Reed Semiconductor’s ’955 patent as obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. et al. v.Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.

· IPR2026-00123

Eoptolink has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight claims of Applied Optoelectronics’ ’887 patent, asserting that the claimed stepped‑profile substrate and edge‑mounted TOSA modules are anticipated or obvious over prior patents by Kuhara and Ho.

Tesla, Inc. v.Perceptive Automata LLC

· IPR2025-01575

Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging Perceptive Automata’s AI‑driven image‑analysis patent (U.S. 11,753,046). The petition asserts obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues that many claim elements are non‑patentable printed matter.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC

· IPR2025-01554

Samsung Electronics has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of claims 1‑14 of PayGeo’s U.S. Patent No. 11,087,307. The challenger argues the claims are obvious in view of Lin, Rackley, and Tumminaro prior‑art references. The petition is pending institution by the PTAB.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC

· IPR2025-01555

Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of PayGeo’s U.S. Patent 12,014,347, asserting that its ten claims covering multi‑factor authentication are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Grigg, Carter, and Google’s 2‑step verification. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all claims.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.PayGeo, LLC

· IPR2025-01553

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑14 of PayGeo’s ’018 mobile‑payment patent, asserting obviousness over Lin, Rackley and Tumminaro. The petition requests institution of the review.