US PTAB IP Litigation

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00067

CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate GoSecure’s 9,106,697 patent covering virtual‑machine‑based malware detection. The petition argues obviousness over Capalik combined with King, Pike, and Farley, and opposes discretionary denial.

Sterlite Technologies Inc. v.AFL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC

· IPR2025-00127

Court decision.

Sterlite Technologies Inc. v.AFL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC

· IPR2025-00127

Sterlite Technologies Inc.'s IPR petition against AFL Telecommunications, LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Sterlite failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds over Summers/Kaji and Pausan/eABF.

patent instituted · Oct 31, 2024

Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00087

The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum, citing the Fintiv factors and lack of compelling merits despite strong arguments regarding network optimization technology.

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00070

CrowdStrike successfully secured institution of IPR against GoSecure's patent 9,954,872. The Board adopted a broad construction for the key term 'association,' reinforcing the likelihood of unpatentability.

patent instituted · Oct 31, 2024

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00070

CrowdStrike initiated an IPR against GoSecure's '872 patent, focusing on obviousness (103) in the field of Intrusion Detection Systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for Ground 1 regarding Claim 1 over Capalik, advancing the case toward trial.

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00070

The Director granted review of an institution decision in a patent dispute between CrowdStrike and GoSecure. The case is now remanded to the PTAB to determine which petition, if any, should proceed after claim construction.

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00069

The PTAB denied institution of IPR for CrowdStrike against GoSecure, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds.

patent instituted · Oct 31, 2024

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00068

The PTAB denied institution of IPR for CrowdStrike against GoSecure, finding that the correct claim construction was already established in a related proceeding.

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00068

CrowdStrike successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against GoSecure regarding network intrusion detection methods. The Board adopted a broad claim construction for IDS/IPS systems, finding reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Capalik and King.

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00068

The Director granted review of the institution decision in a dispute between CrowdStrike and GoSecure, vacating the initial orders. The case is remanded for the Board to determine which claim construction (broader or narrower) should be used before deciding on trial.

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00066

The PTAB denied the petition to challenge claims 1-20 of patent 10598258, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board rejected arguments regarding obviousness, noting insufficient motivation to combine prior art references in the claimed manner.

CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.

· IPR2025-00067

The PTAB denied CrowdStrike's IPR against GoSecure's patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on the grounds of obviousness. The Board specifically rejected the petitioner's argument that prior art taught fingerprint generation within a virtual machine monitor.

LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.

· IPR2025-00102

The PTAB granted a sua sponte Director review of several IPRs involving LifeScan and TikTok after rejecting the patent owner’s motion to terminate on RPI and sovereign‑person grounds. The IPRs are stayed pending the Director’s opinion.

LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.

· IPR2025-00103

Court decision.

LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.

· IPR2025-00104

The PTAB Director has opened a sua sponte review to reconsider institution decisions in seven IPRs involving TikTok and diabetes‑monitoring patents after rejecting the Patent Owner’s RPI and sovereign‑person arguments.

LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.

· IPR2025-00102

LifeScan, Senseonics and Ascensia have filed a petition to review CellSpin Soft’s U.S. Patent 11,234,121 covering a Bluetooth‑enabled data capture device. They assert the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack written‑description support, seeking institution of the IPR.

LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.

· IPR2025-00104

LifeScan, Senseonics and Ascensia have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Cellspin Soft’s 8,904,030 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several Bluetooth‑related prior arts and lack priority. The petition also cites discretionary factors favoring institution.

LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.

· IPR2025-00103

LifeScan and co‑petitioners seek IPR of Cellspin Soft’s 9,900,766 patent, asserting that claims 1‑15 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack valid priority. They also highlight discretionary factors favoring institution.

LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.

· IPR2025-00104

LifeScan successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cellspin Soft's patent, asserting that the claimed wireless data transmission methods are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, moving the dispute into active review proceedings.

LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.

· IPR2025-00103

LifeScan and co-petitioners successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial on all 15 claims of patent 9900766 against Cellspin Soft, Inc. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claimed multimedia content distribution methods were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Singh906, Kahn, and Bluetooth specifications.