US PTAB IP Litigation

patent terminated or settled · Oct 18, 2024

Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent 9,571,833 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01507

Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,996,693 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).

patent terminated or settled · Oct 18, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

Amazon and Nokia filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR concerning patent 9,571,833.

Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC

· IPR2025-00062

Zepp Health has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 15 claims of Slyde Analytics’ smartwatch power‑mode patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also requests that the Board not deny institution under discretionary provisions.

Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00032

Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,563,338, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering EV charging, GUI interfaces, and HVAC control. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).

MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.

· IPR2025-00030

MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of ParkerVision’s ’593 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution under the Fintiv provision.

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00040

Motorola and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate nine claims of Multifold’s ’756 patent covering split‑screen gestures on multi‑display devices, citing Yook, Lee, Aguilar and Purcell as prior art and arguing against discretionary denial.

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00041

Motorola Mobility and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 11 claims of Multifold’s ’153 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Arthrex, Inc. et al. v.Medshape, Inc.

· IPR2025-00053

Arthrex has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of Medshape’s ’222 bone‑fixation patent, arguing obviousness over Monassevitch and over a Bolesky‑Hoffman combination. The petition also argues the Board should not deny institution under §314.

Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00037

Nokia and four other telecom operators have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of six claims of Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s U.S. Patent 10,616,932, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references (Lin1, Lin2, Zhang). The petition also opposes discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d).

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’833 HEVC video‑compression patent, asserting obviousness over Rusert, Zheng, Nakamura and WD4. The petition argues the examiner ignored critical prior art and seeks institution of the review.

patent denied · Oct 18, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01507

Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,996,693 patent covering dynamic and static data processing. The petition asserts obviousness over IBM’s Foster and Williams publications and seeks cancellation of 18 claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Arthrex, Inc. et al. v.Medshape, Inc.

· IPR2025-00053

The PTAB denied Arthrex's IPR petition against Medshape's patent (7985222), citing the complex and overlapping nature of co-pending district court litigation.

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00040

Motorola and Google successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Multifold International for patent 9134756, focusing on dual-screen UI technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under both anticipation (Yook/Purcell) and obviousness grounds.

patent denied · Oct 18, 2024

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00041

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Motorola and Google against Multifold, challenging 11 claims of patent 9058153. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioners would prevail on unpatentability grounds based on prior art.

Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00037

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Nokia's wireless connection patents against Pegasus Wireless. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, citing significant investment and proximity to a parallel district court trial date.

Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00032

Tesla Inc. successfully secured institution in this IPR against Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC for battery charging system claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references.

MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.

· IPR2025-00030

MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge ParkerVision, Inc.'s '593 patent in an IPR proceeding before the PTAB. The Board instituted the trial on all 20 challenged claims based on obviousness (103), despite arguments regarding constitutional due process and duplication of district court litigation.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01507

Amazon successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR challenge against Nokia's data analytics patent (8996693). The Board granted institution based on a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability, focusing heavily on preliminary claim constructions.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy