US PTAB IP Litigation

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00369

Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and no discretionary denial grounds.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00365

Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 34 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over Sheha and Randall references. The petition cites a prior Board institution in an Apple IPR and argues no discretionary denial applies.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00366

Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 15‑41 of Mullen Industries’ ’117 patent covering wireless device location sharing, citing multiple prior‑art combinations under §103.

International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00380

IBM petitions the PTAB to invalidate Croga’s ’780 patent covering virtual‑machine firewalls, arguing the claims are obvious over Delco, Adams, and Dadhia. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

patent denied · Dec 30, 2024

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00339

Tesla petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a digital‑camera patent, arguing they are obvious over existing multi‑sensor camera technologies and that no discretionary denial applies.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00369

The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Samsung against Mullen Industries regarding patent 11246024. The denial affirms the initial decision not to institute trial.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00368

The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. The decision affirms the prior denial of institution across several patent challenges.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00367

The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. This decision affirms the prior denial of institution, meaning trial will not proceed on these patents.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00366

The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries regarding patent 11234117. This decision maintains the prior institution decisions across several related cases.

patent instituted · Dec 30, 2024

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00365

The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Mullen Industries. The decision affirms the prior institution decisions across several patents.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00339

Tesla, Inc. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding its digital imaging patents (7916180). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 16 challenged claims based on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).

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

Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s enzyme patent, arguing the claims lack adequate written description and enablement. The reply emphasizes functional language and the impossibility of testing the claimed 1,059+ PH20 variants.

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

Merck defends its PH20 enzyme patent in a PTAB Director Review proceeding, arguing that the claims satisfy §112 written description and enablement and that Halozyme's claim‑construction objections are unfounded. The petitioner also contends that Fintiv factors do not justify discretionary denial.

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

Halozyme seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review of its ’035 enzyme patent. The petition contends the Board mis‑interpreted claim language and mis‑applied eligibility standards, and argues that Fintiv factors demand denial of institution.

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

Halozyme has sought a Director Review of the PGR, and Merck has 5 business days to file a brief response without new evidence.

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

Court decision.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00291

The PTAB Director denied Google and other petitioners' request for review of the institution denial in several IPRs, including the case involving Pegasus Wireless Innovation's patent 10,594,460.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00291

Google’s request for a Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s patent was rejected. The Board found the petitioners offered no statutory basis and raised new arguments, affirming the Director’s Fintiv analysis as reasonable.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00291

Google and other U.S. carriers have filed a petition for Director Review, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00291 concerning patent 10,594,460. They argue the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, retroactively changed policy, and violated due process. The petition seeks to have the denial vacated and the IPR instituted.

Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.

· IPR2025-00287

Biofrontera has filed a rehearing request challenging the Board’s denial to institute an IPR on Sun Pharmaceutical’s photodynamic therapy patent, arguing the claims are highly vulnerable and that institution would prevent inconsistent rulings.

Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.

· IPR2025-00287

The USPTO denied Biofrontera's request for rehearing of the decision that refused to institute its IPR against Sun Pharmaceutical's patent 11,446,512. The Board affirmed the discretionary denial, leaving the patent unchallenged.

Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC

· IPR2025-00025

The PTAB denied Samsung's petition for inter partes review of Truesight's '803 patent covering kiosk‑based media distribution. The Board applied the Fintiv discretionary factors and concluded that denying institution best served efficiency given the parallel district‑court litigation.

Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC

· IPR2025-00025

Samsung’s petition to invalidate Truesight’s virtual SD‑card patent was denied by the PTAB, which exercised its discretion under § 314(a) after weighing the six Fintiv factors and finding the parallel district‑court litigation outweighed the petition’s merits.

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