US PTAB IP Litigation

Full-Metal-Power B.V. v.InFocus Downhole Solutions USA LLC

· IPR2025-00391

Full-Metal-Power B.V. has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Infocus Downhole Solutions' 2020 patent on downhole progressive cavity tools, asserting obviousness over multiple foreign and U.S. references.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00291

Google and its affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation's 5G frequency‑hopping patent, arguing that the claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues the Board should not deny the filing under discretionary statutes.

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

· IPR2025-00287

Biofrontera has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate eight claims of Sun Pharma’s photodynamic‑therapy device patent, arguing obviousness over Lundahl, Larsen, Hente and Perutz. The petition argues the prior art was not previously considered and that the Board should not deny the petition under §325(d) or Fintiv.

Full-Metal-Power B.V. v.InFocus Downhole Solutions USA LLC

· IPR2025-00391

Full-Metal-Power B.V. filed a corrected exhibit set for its IPR challenge to InFocus Downhole Solutions' U.S. Patent 10,676,992, addressing labeling errors.

patent instituted · Dec 27, 2024

Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC

· IPR2025-00025

Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑19 of Truesight’s ‘879 patent covering V‑chip‑based parental controls. The petition alleges obviousness over prior art references Sullivan, Leung, and Craner and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

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

· PGR2025-00009

The PTAB instituted the PGR petition challenging Halozyme's patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides. The Board found that the claims were not sufficiently supported by the specification regarding enablement and obviousness, despite Petitioner's arguments about the genus size.

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' petition to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent. The Board concluded Phison failed to show any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under §§ 101, 112, 103. No trial was instituted.

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ petition for post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding no sufficient evidence that claims 1‑6 are unpatentable.

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

Phison Electronics files a PGR petition to invalidate Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash memory patent, asserting abstractness, lack of written description, indefiniteness and obviousness. The petition leans on an expert declaration and extensive prior‑art citations.

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

Micron (on behalf of Phison) petitions the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Vervain’s 10,950,300 flash‑memory patent, arguing they are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja. The petition also argues against discretionary denial under § 314(a).

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

The PTAB denied the petitioners' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case covering patent 10,721,118 owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Google and other carriers’ request for director review of the PTAB’s denial of institution in a wireless patent case was rejected for lacking a valid basis and introducing new arguments.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Google and other carriers filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against patent 10,721,118. They contend the Board abused discretion, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed policy, seeking a review of the denial.

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

Phison Electronics Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of ten claims of Vervain’s ‘369 NAND‑flash patent, alleging abstractness, lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

patent terminated or settled · Dec 24, 2024

Google and a consortium of carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate U.S. Patent 10,721,118, which covers dual‑connectivity methods for user equipment. The petition relies on the Futaki publication and 3GPP standards to argue anticipation and obviousness of all 15 claims.

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

· PGR2025-00012

ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,938,201 and jointly moved to terminate the pending post‑grant review. The Board is expected to grant the termination under statutory authority.

patent terminated or settled · Dec 24, 2024

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

· PGR2025-00012

ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,938,201, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the post‑grant review.

patent denied · Dec 24, 2024

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

· PGR2025-00012

ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,938,201 and jointly request the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential.

iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00377

The PTAB Director denied institution of iRhythm's IPR against Welch Allyn's cardiac monitor patent. The patent owner’s response argues the denial was proper, citing lack of evidence and procedural compliance.

iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00378

iRhythm Technologies filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of five IPR petitions on the basis of a new “settled expectations” rule. The petitioner contends the rule is retroactive, violates precedent, and would harm patent quality. The request seeks vacatur of the denial and institution of the IPRs.

patent denied · Dec 24, 2024

iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00378

The PTAB denied iRhythm’s petition to institute an IPR against Welch Allyn’s cardiac‑monitor patent. Welch Allyn’s counsel filed an authorized response asserting the Director’s holistic assessment was proper and that the petitioner offered no new evidence. The request for review is therefore expected to be denied.

iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00377

The USPTO Director denied iRhythm's request for a rehearing of the institution decision in its IPR against Welch Allyn's cardiac monitoring patent. The denial leaves the original institution denial intact.

patent denied · Dec 24, 2024

iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00378

The PTAB denied iRhythm's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00378 and related cases, keeping Welch Allyn's patent intact. The decision rests on the Board's discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).