US PTAB IP Litigation

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

· IPR2025-00157

ResMed has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cleveland Medical Devices' ’284 patent covering a networked PAP therapy system, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior PAP and telemedicine technologies.

MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

· IPR2025-00100

MediaTek has filed an IPR petition challenging all 24 claims of Daedalus Prime’s ’838 patent covering a hardware security engine for secure communications. The petition argues obviousness based on prior art combinations and seeks institution of the review.

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC

· IPR2025-00090

American Axle seeks IPR on Neapco’s 11,434,958 patent covering a joint‑assembly with an access window. The petition argues the claims are anticipated by the 2016 Jeep Renegade service manual and obvious over that manual combined with Krude ʼ422 and Sugiyama. No secondary considerations are shown, and the petitioner urges the Board to institute the IPR.

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC

· IPR2025-00091

American Axle has filed an IPR petition challenging Neapco’s 11,598,376 drivetrain joint‑assembly patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated by a 2016 Jeep Renegade service manual and obvious in view of that manual combined with Krude ’422 and Sugiyama.

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00084

Ericsson and several industry partners have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 12 claims of U.S. Patent 11,219,000, which covers uplink control channel resource allocation in 5G NR. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art such as Yan, Takeda, Marinier, and a 3GPP submission, and challenges discretionary denial arguments.

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00083

Ericsson, Nokia, AT&T, Verizon, Google and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of U.S. Patent 10,638,463 covering uplink control channel resource allocation. The petition argues obviousness over Takeda, Yan, Marinier and a 3GPP technical contribution, and opposes discretionary denial under §§314(a) and 325(d).

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00197

The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Samsung against Mullen Industries. The decision maintains the prior institution decisions across several patents.

Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00193

The PTAB denied Curio Bioscience's IPR against Prognosys/10X Genomics, finding no grounds for invalidity based on obviousness (Cantor/Armani) or anticipation (Frisen). The Board concluded that the prior art did not teach the necessary combination elements of spatially encoded biological assays.

Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00192

The PTAB denied Curio Bioscience's IPR challenge against Prognosys and 10X Genomics, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (102), obviousness (103), or written description (112). The Board upheld the validity of the challenged claims in spatial omics/assay systems technology.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00188

Cisco Systems successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against WSOU Investments regarding network protection claims (8982691). The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, specifically finding that prior art references inherently disclose key claim limitations.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00188

The Director denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review in a Cisco Systems case, vacating the initial decision. The denial was based on procedural efficiency due to the proximity of a parallel district court trial.

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· IPR2025-00171

Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent, leading the PTAB to institute trial on all 28 claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds using prior art references KR996, Bares, and Beltrami.

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· IPR2025-00169

Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of its IPR against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent (9321386). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim would be unpatentable based on prior art combinations.

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· IPR2025-00170

Kubota North America Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB not to issue a discretionary denial of its IPR petition against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent. The Board found that Kubota demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground, allowing the case to proceed to full examination.

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· IPR2025-00168

Kubota North America Corporation successfully navigated the institution decision process against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent, leading to a trial on key claims. The Board found that the prior art was sufficiently distinct from previous PTO examinations and granted review under § 325(d).

Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company

· IPR2025-00167

Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's '386 patent, asserting grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The Board found that the petitioner's arguments regarding prior art combinations were persuasive enough to overcome the Patent Owner's request for discretionary denial.

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

· IPR2025-00157

The PTAB denied ResMed Corp.'s Inter Partes Review petition against Cleveland Medical Devices' patent, citing prior filings and concerns over 'road-mapping'.

MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

· IPR2025-00100

MediaTek Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC's patent (9887838). The Board found that MediaTek presented a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) across all 24 claimed claims.

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC

· IPR2025-00091

American Axle & Manufacturing successfully petitioned to challenge the patentability of Neapco Components' propeller shaft joint assembly claims before the PTAB. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood that the Renegade Manual qualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC

· IPR2025-00090

The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood that the Renegade Manual was publicly accessible in 2016, establishing it as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). This finding allows American Axle & Manufacturing to challenge all 18 claims of Neapco Components' patent.

Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00083

The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC's patent (No. 10638463) for obviousness over prior art including Takeda, Yan, and 3GPP R1-1711853. The petitioner group, comprising major wireless carriers and tech companies, successfully argued that the claimed method is unpatentable in 5G NR resource allocation.