US PTAB IP Litigation

Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

· IPR2025-00316

Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,805,687, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art streaming technologies. The petition also argues against discretionary denial, referencing Fintiv and the lack of a prior petition by the same party.

Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

· IPR2025-00315

Sportradar has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent (U.S. 10,805,687) on obviousness grounds, citing a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition argues no prior petition exists and includes a Fintiv stipulation to limit further challenges.

Lam Research Corp. v.Inpria Corporation

· IPR2025-00309

Lam Research has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Inpria's EUV lithography patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness issues. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.

Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

· IPR2025-00314

Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s ‘697 patent covering low‑latency sports video and data streaming. The petition alleges obviousness over five prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.

Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

· IPR2025-00313

Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over six prior‑art references and asking the PTAB to institute the review and cancel the claims.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.

The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,865,291 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. All challenged claims (1‑8, 12‑19) are now subject to trial.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on all nine challenged claims.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

Nutanix filed a request for director review, urging the PTAB to deny Tessell’s IPR on grounds of unfair dealing, settled expectations, and prior art already examined. The petition argues that the inventors are attempting to profit twice from the same invention.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

Petitioner Tessell, Inc. filed an authorized response opposing Nutanix, Inc.’s request to reverse the PTAB’s institution of IPR2025-00298. The brief argues no unfair dealing, cites settled expectations for early‑filed patents, and asserts that discretionary denial under §325(d) is improper.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

patent denied · Dec 13, 2024

Tessell, Inc. seeks rehearing of the Director’s decision to deny institution of its IPR against Nutanix, arguing the Director misapplied assignor estoppel contrary to 35 U.S.C. §311(a) and Federal Circuit precedent. The petition asks the Board to reverse the denial and reinstate the institution order.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Dec 13, 2024

Nutanix successfully defended the Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Tessell, arguing that the Director’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) is unbounded and that no right to institution exists. The Board denied Tessell’s request for rehearing.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.

The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable. Petitioner Imperative Care proved anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller and Garrison, with the Board emphasizing that the claimed filament must be flexible.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success. All challenged claims (1‑7, 9‑10, 15‑18, 20‑24) are now under review.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.

patent denied · Dec 13, 2024

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.

The PTAB denied Imperative Care’s petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 11,744,691, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board concluded the cited prior art did not disclose the required negative‑pressure pump configuration.

Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.

· IPR2025-00264

The IPRs challenging Kyocera’s patents were terminated after the parties reached a settlement, with the agreement kept confidential.

Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.

· IPR2025-00263

Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools entered into a settlement that resolves their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,241,776. Both parties jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, citing Board policy favoring settlement and the lack of a merits decision.

Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.

· IPR2025-00262

Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco entered into a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑00262, ending the challenge to U.S. Patent No. 10,478,954 covering cutting‑tool technology.

Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.

· IPR2025-00263

Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco have reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to treat the agreement as confidential and terminate the IPR over patent 11,241,776.

Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.

· IPR2025-00262

Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,478,954, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.

Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.

· IPR2025-00261

Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 11,034,007 and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00261, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c).

Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.

· IPR2025-00261

Koki Holdings America Ltd. and Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc. entered into a settlement agreement covering U.S. Patent No. 11,034,007 and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00261. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

Tessell, Inc. submitted an email to the PTAB Director requesting a rehearing after the Director Review denied institution of its IPR against Nutanix, Inc.