US PTAB IP Litigation

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have settled their dispute over a modular switchgear patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR.

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services entered a confidential settlement with U.S. Well Services, filing a joint request to keep the agreement private and to terminate the IPR covering a modular switchgear patent for electric oilfield equipment.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I

· IPR2025-00201

Liberty Mutual filed a joint motion to terminate its IPR against Intellectual Ventures I’s patent 7,949,785.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I

· IPR2025-00201

Liberty Mutual and patent‑holder Intellectual Ventures have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,949,785 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues the proceeding is at an early stage with no merits decision.

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

U.S. Well Services seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB Board’s decision to institute an IPR on its hydraulic fracturing patent, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors.

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,208,878, resulting in a joint motion to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted termination and kept the settlement confidential.

patent instituted · Nov 20, 2024

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I

· IPR2025-00200

Liberty Mutual and Intellectual Ventures settled their inter partes review disputes before any trial, leading the Board to terminate the three IPRs. The settlement agreements were treated as confidential business information.

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

patent denied · Nov 20, 2024

The USPTO Director denied Liberty Energy’s request for a review of the institution decision on U.S. Patent 11,208,878, leaving the patent’s institution intact.

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

The PTAB denied U.S. Well Services’ request to file new Director Review submissions in IPR2025‑00139, leaving the institution of the proceeding intact. The dispute centers on alleged violations of a Sotera stipulation by the petitioners in parallel district‑court litigation.

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services filed a detailed response defending the institution of IPR2025‑00139 against U.S. Well Services’ request for a Director’s discretionary denial. The brief leans heavily on Fintiv precedent and argues that the Board’s factual findings are correct and that the patent’s claims remain vulnerable to three prior‑art combinations.

Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00216

Luxottica has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of e‑Vision’s Bluetooth‑enabled smart‑eyewear patent, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references including Thiel, Jannard‑740 and Apple’s Siri technology.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I

· IPR2025-00200

Liberty Mutual and Comerica have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 37 claims of Intellectual Ventures' 722 patent on the ground of obviousness over prior‑art event‑notification systems. The petition relies on expert testimony and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-00176

Samsung Bioepis has filed an IPR petition challenging 48 claims of Regeneron’s anti‑VEGF ophthalmic formulation patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art formulations and presentation data.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00202

Liberty Mutual has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 27 claims of Intellectual Ventures' 844 patent on the basis of obviousness. The petition argues that the examiner never considered key prior art and that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I

· IPR2025-00201

Liberty Mutual and Comerica petition the PTAB to invalidate 63 claims of IV’s ‘Secure Virtual Community Network System’ patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Mehta and RFC‑1383. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC

patent instituted · Nov 20, 2024

Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of U.S. Patent 11,208,878 covering a modular switchgear system for oilfield fracturing equipment, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00216

The PTAB granted institution for Luxottica against E-Vision's electronic eyewear patent (11487138), finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness grounds using prior art like Thiel and Gruber.

patent denied · Nov 20, 2024

Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-00176

Samsung Bioepis sought to invalidate numerous claims of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals' ophthalmic formulations using grounds of obviousness (103). The PTAB denied institution based on a holistic Fintiv analysis, citing significant overlap with ongoing district court and MDL proceedings.

patent instituted · Nov 20, 2024

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC