US PTAB IP Litigation

patent terminated or settled · Nov 25, 2024

Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.

Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 10,880,592 after reaching a confidential settlement with NL Giken.

PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00212

Phison Electronics has petitioned the PTAB for inter‑partes review of Vervain’s 8,891,298 patent covering a hybrid NAND flash memory system. The petition asserts that all 11 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of multiple prior‑art references. The Board must decide whether to institute the proceeding.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00221

Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all eight claims of Intellectual Ventures II’s ’889 patent covering closed‑loop power control in CDMA/3G networks. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Dateki patent, the Mate publication, and the Chitrapu publication, which disclose the same F‑DPCH mechanisms before the patent’s priority date.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00220

Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of IV’s ’670 LTE‑MTC patent, arguing they are obvious over Wallen and Berggren. The petition argues that the prior art was not considered during prosecution and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

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

· IPR2025-00189

Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘666 patent, asserting that claims 17, 19, and 20 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-00145

Sinclair Pharma has filed an IPR petition challenging HydraFacial's skin‑treatment patent (US 11,865,287). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and requests cancellation of 41 claims. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of NL Giken’s ’592 patent, arguing obviousness over Walker and Chang references and opposing discretionary denial.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00221

Tesla challenged Intellectual Ventures II's wireless communication patents under obviousness (103). The PTAB decided to institute the IPR on all eight claims after finding a reasonable likelihood of success.

patent denied · Nov 25, 2024

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00220

Tesla successfully petitioned to challenge Intellectual Ventures II's '670 Patent under Section 103, leading the PTAB to grant institution. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art references Wallen and Berggren regarding LTE/MTC communication systems.

PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00212

The PTAB denied Phison Electronics Corporation's request to institute IPR against Vervain, LLC's patent 8,891,298. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, primarily due to significant overlap with ongoing parallel district court litigation.

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

· IPR2025-00189

Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge a key claim in Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent. The Board granted institution based on obviousness over prior art references like Kim and Nam, advancing the dispute into an active IPR phase.

patent denied · Nov 25, 2024

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-00145

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against HydraFacial LLC regarding skin treatment systems, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over prior art references. The Board found that combining existing microdermabrasion and irrigation technologies renders the challenged claims unpatentable.

Sinclair Pharma Limited et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-00145

The PTAB Director vacated the institution decision for IPR2025-00145 and denied the petition. This was because a prior ITC Initial Determination had already found that the patent claims were valid and the owner achieved commercial success.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.

patent denied · Nov 22, 2024

Amazon successfully challenged NL Giken's patent (US 10880592) in the PTAB, leading to institution on claims 1-3 and 5. The petitioner argued that prior art references Walker and Chang rendered the claims obvious in the context of digital broadcasting systems.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00227

The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of institution in IPR2025-00227, finding the review inefficient and unnecessary after prior adjudication and a stipulation not to reassert the claims. Google’s petition for rehearing was rejected.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00227

Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to rehear the Director's discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00227, arguing the denial exceeds statutory authority and misapplies the "settled expectations" doctrine.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00227

Google and Samsung have filed a petition to invalidate Mullen Industries' 9,635,540 patent covering mobile‑to‑mobile location sharing. The petition relies on a suite of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and asserts no basis for discretionary denial.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00161

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of SiOnyx’s ’714 image‑sensor patent, alleging anticipation or obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should not deny institution under §314(a).

Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC

· IPR2025-00133

Shopify has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,488,237, alleging anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner overlooked critical teachings and requests the Board to institute review.

Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC

· IPR2025-00132

Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of DKR Consulting’s ’995 e‑commerce widget patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC

· IPR2025-00131

Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 10,846,785, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Dierks and Johnston. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.

Shopify Inc. v.DKR Consulting LLC

· IPR2025-00130

Shopify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 11,455,678, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner overlooked key references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.