US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· PGR2025-00004

Merck challenges Halozyme’s broad PH20 hyaluronidase patent, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness of the claimed protein variants.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00190

Micron has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 12 claims of Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘941 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Dong publication and combinations with Costa and Shirai. The petition seeks institution and argues no discretionary denial is warranted.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00222

Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Intellectual Ventures’ ’158 patent covering multi‑sensor digital cameras, arguing obviousness over Matsushima, Yu, and Miyazaki and opposing discretionary denial.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00217

Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 12 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Patent 10,952,153 covering uplink power‑control techniques, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00219

Tesla seeks IPR institution to invalidate claims 11‑22 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’500 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering uplink power control. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00113

Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Miracor’s LVAD patent (U.S. 11,376,415). The petition argues that the claims are obvious in view of four prior‑art references covering magnetically driven rotary pumps.

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00115

Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging Miracor Medical’s 11,674,517 LVAD patent, asserting that all 19 challenged claims are obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition argues that the prior art discloses every claim limitation and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00112

Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Miracor Medical’s 357 Patent covering a magnetically levitated LVAD. The petition relies on four prior‑art references to argue that all challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.

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

· PGR2025-00004

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB against Halozyme, Inc.'s '298 patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides. The Board granted institution despite challenges based on Written Description and Enablement, allowing the dispute to proceed to trial.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00222

Tesla, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Intellectual Ventures II LLC were likely unpatentable based on prior art references Matsushima and Yu/Miyazaki. The Board granted institution, moving the dispute toward trial over key terms like 'integration time' in dynamic range camera technology.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00219

The PTAB granted institution for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II regarding patent 9706500. The review will examine claims related to transmit power control in wireless networks.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00217

The PTAB granted institution for Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II regarding patent 10952153. The review challenges the obviousness of TPC commands in wireless networks.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00190

Micron Technology initiated an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash memory claims, challenging the patent on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several key claims over prior art (Dong), leading to the institution of the proceeding.

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00115

Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge 19 claims of MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's LVAD patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence for institution, adopting broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling.'

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00113

Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned to challenge claims of MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's VAD patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over multiple prior art references.

Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA

· IPR2025-00112

Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned to challenge MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's cardiac assist pump patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence of unpatentability over the Bourque/Wampler combination, despite arguments regarding specific claim limitations and prior art scope.

patent denied · Nov 25, 2024

PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00212

Phison’s post‑grant review petition includes this exhibit of supporting evidence for its challenge to Vervain’s U.S. Patent 8,891,298.

PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00212

The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s 11,830,546 patent covering a mixed‑level NAND flash storage system. The Board found Phison’s evidence insufficient to meet the “more likely than not” standard for any of the asserted grounds. No institution was ordered.

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

HydraFacial seeks Director Review after the PTAB instituted a copycat IPR despite a parallel ITC case. The patent owner contends the Board failed to apply Fintiv factors, warranting a discretionary denial under § 314(a).

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

patent denied · Nov 25, 2024

The Board initiated a sua sponte Director Review of an IPR concerning HydraFacial's facial treatment device patent after the ITC found the claims valid and commercially successful. The proceeding is stayed pending the Director's opinion.

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

The USPTO denied Sinclair Pharma’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00145 concerning HydraFacial’s patent 11,865,287. The institution of the IPR remains in place.

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

patent denied · Nov 25, 2024

Court decision.

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

The PTAB denied Sinclair Pharma’s request for a rehearing of the order that vacated the institution of IPR2025‑00145 concerning HydraFacial’s skin‑care device patent. The Board found no basis to grant rehearing after reviewing the parties’ submissions.

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC