US PTAB IP Litigation

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Verizon and its partners seek Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against KT Corp.’s 942 patent. They argue the denial violated due process and misapplied Fintiv factors, urging the Board to institute the review.

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

· IPR2025-00377

iRhythm has requested Director Review of Welch Allyn’s patent 8,214,007 in IPR2025-00377. The patent owner may file a brief response limited to the raised issues within five days, with no new evidence allowed.

patent denied · Dec 24, 2024

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

· IPR2025-00378

The Board acknowledged receipt of Director Review requests for several IPRs, including IPR2025‑00378, and instructed the patent owner to file a limited response within five business days. No new evidence may be submitted.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

patent denied · Dec 24, 2024

The Board denied Verizon Wireless and co‑petitioners’ request for Director Review of an institution denial, finding no statutory basis and rejecting new arguments. The institution denial based on a holistic Fintiv analysis therefore stands.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

The PTAB denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in multiple IPRs, including the Verizon Wireless challenge to Pegasus Wireless’s patent. The Board affirmed its original decision not to institute the IPRs.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

patent denied · Dec 24, 2024

Verizon and other carriers have filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on the ’272 patent owned by Korea’s KT Corp. They argue the denial violated due‑process and that institutional review is needed for efficiency and fairness.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

The PTAB denied Verizon and co‑petitioners' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case covering patent 11,540,272.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC filed an authorized response opposing Verizon and other carriers’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on patent 11,540,272. The response asserts the request lacks statutory basis and introduces impermissible new arguments.

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

· PGR2025-00012

ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of Johns Hopkins' ’201 patent covering low‑molecular‑weight FAP‑α imaging agents, arguing obviousness, lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and indefiniteness.

Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.

· IPR2025-00325

Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging ParkerVision’s 9,118,528 patent covering down‑conversion receiver technology, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.

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

· IPR2025-00377

iRhythm has filed an IPR petition challenging 26 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable heart‑monitor patent, asserting obviousness over Jensen, Kroll and other prior art. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and seeks cancellation of the claims.

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

· IPR2025-00378

iRhythm has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 25 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v.AbTis Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-00283

Ajinomoto has filed an IPR petition challenging AbTis’s U.S. Patent 11,896,675 covering site‑specific antibody‑drug conjugates. The petitioner alleges lack of written description, improper priority, and that all 13 claims are anticipated or obvious over several pre‑grant publications and conference disclosures. The petition seeks cancellation of every claim.

Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.

· IPR2025-00324

Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 14 of ParkerVision’s ‘177 patent, asserting obviousness over Tayloe, a TI multiplexer datasheet, Razavi, and Uzunoglu references. The petition argues that the prior art predates the patent’s critical date and that discretionary denial factors do not apply.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

Verizon and other carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of a 5G preemption patent owned by Pegasus Wireless. The petition relies on obviousness over the Kuchibhotla and Chen publications and asks the PTAB to institute the review.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC