US PTAB IP Litigation

patent terminated or settled · Jun 13, 2024

Minka Lighting, LLC and Wangs Alliance Corporation have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01027 concerning patent 11028854. The motion seeks to end the inter partes review.

Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation

Minka Lighting and Wangs Alliance settled their IPR dispute over a lighting patent before the trial was instituted. The Board dismissed the petition and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

patent · Jun 13, 2024

Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.

Corteva Agriscience seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that instituted inter‑partes review of its transgenic corn patent, arguing the Board misapplied enablement law and misread factual evidence of germplasm availability.

patent · Jun 13, 2024

Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation

patent instituted · Jun 13, 2024

Court decision.

Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.

patent null · Jun 13, 2024

The PTAB denied Inari Agriculture's request for Director Review of the institution decision on Corteva's patent 8,901,378, leaving the institution in place.

Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation

patent null · Jun 13, 2024

Minka Lighting, LLC filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Wangs Alliance Corporation's patent covering smart fan control systems. The petitioner asserts that the claimed combination of RF and WiFi interfaces is obvious over various prior art references. This challenge targets claims related to wireless communication in home appliances.

Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.

patent instituted · Jun 13, 2024

Inari Agriculture challenged Corteva Agriscience's patent covering TC1507 plant biotechnology, arguing the claims fail enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) due to missing germplasm deposits. The petitioner also asserted anticipation and obviousness over prior art (Barbour) under both §102 and §103.

Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.

patent final · Jun 13, 2024

Inari Agriculture successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Corteva Agriscience's GMO patents based on prior art from Barbour. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding anticipation and obviousness over the cited publication, moving the case toward trial.

Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.

patent denied · Jun 12, 2024

The PTAB Board upheld the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,901,378 B2 after finding that the TC1507 germplasm was publicly available prior to the application's filing date. The Board concluded that this availability satisfied priority requirements and prevented Barbour from qualifying as prior art under § 102.

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00214

The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' request to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain's 11,854,612 patent covering mixed‑level NAND flash memory, finding the petitioner had not shown any claim to be unpatentable.

patent denied · Jun 12, 2024

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00214

The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' petition for post‑grant review of Vervain's NAND‑flash storage patent, finding no sufficient evidence of unpatentability under §§ 101, 103, and 112. No claim constructions were required, and the petition was dismissed without instituting a trial.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 12, 2024

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00214

Phison Electronics Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition to invalidate Vervain’s U.S. Patent No. 11,830,546 covering a hybrid SLC‑MLC NAND flash system. The petition alleges lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, insufficient written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

patent terminated or settled · Jun 12, 2024

Comcast and Entropic Communications settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,785,275. The Board terminated the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Comcast and Entropic Communications have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,785,275. The parties jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-00180, citing statutory authority and the lack of a merits decision. The Board is expected to grant the termination.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Entropic Communications seeks Director review to deny institution of Comcast’s IPR, arguing the petitioner’s repeated filing of parallel petitions violates USPTO guidance and burdens the PTAB. The request cites statutory discretionary‑denial authority to block the abusive filing pattern.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Entropic Communications requests Director review to block Comcast’s parallel IPR filings against its 11,785,275 patent, arguing the petitions violate statutory limits on abusive filing. The petition cites the USPTO’s 2019 guidance, which was prompted by Comcast’s own conduct.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Comcast defends its three parallel IPR petitions against Entropic Communications, asserting they comply with PTAB guidance and are essential for addressing multiple invalidity grounds. The response urges the Director to reject the Patent Owner’s request for review.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

patent terminated or settled · Jun 12, 2024

Court decision.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Comcast and Entropic Communications filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 11,785,275. The parties cite 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) to protect sensitive business information.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Comcast has filed a petition to review Entropic’s ’275 patent, asserting that all twenty claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Zhang and its combinations. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and seeks cancellation of the claims.

Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

· IPR2025-00251

Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s 11,871,088 patent covering live‑sports video and data streaming, asserting obviousness over Ellis, Spivey, Herzog and Abulikemu. The petition argues the examiner never considered key prior art and that discretionary denial is improper.