US PTAB IP Litigation

Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.

· IPR2025-00136

The PTAB denied Aardevo North America's request for Director Review of the earlier decision denying institution of IPR2025-00136 covering patent 11,140,841. The petition was dismissed without further action.

Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.

· IPR2025-00136

Aardevo North America challenges Agventure's 2021 potato hybrid seed patent, asserting that all ten claims are anticipated or obvious based on decades of prior art. The petition lists nine grounds covering anticipation and obviousness over publications dating back to 1971. No secondary considerations are offered.

TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00135

TCL has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Maxell’s U.S. Pat. 10,219,020, seeking to invalidate claims covering a display apparatus controlled by a mobile terminal. The petition relies on Bennett and Nashida prior‑art references combined with POSITA knowledge to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.

TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00134

TCL Electronics has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Maxell’s U.S. Patent 10,650,780 covering a display apparatus that uses USB and wireless LAN. The petition relies on the Lawther prior‑art reference to argue obviousness of claims 1‑11, 13, and 15‑20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

patent instituted · Apr 11, 2024

TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00120

TCL Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Maxell’s 10,375,341 patent covering a multi‑user video display system, asserting that all four claims are obvious over the Acharya prior‑art publication.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.

· IPR2025-00141

The PTAB institution of IPR2025-00141, filed by Skechers against Nike, moves forward to challenge the patent's validity on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing after vacating an initial discretionary denial.

patent instituted · Apr 11, 2024

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.

· IPR2025-00142

The PTAB granted institution of Inter Partes Review for Skechers against Nike regarding a footwear patent (9730484). The Board determined that Skechers met the threshold by showing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references like Dua and Hong.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.

· IPR2025-00141

The Director granted review and vacated the denial of institution in a Nike patent dispute, remanding the case to the Board. The decision hinged on prior IPR findings showing an apparent material error regarding the Nishida reference.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.

· IPR2025-00141

The PTAB denied Skechers' petition for IPR against Nike, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error regarding prior art already considered by the Examiner. This decision reinforces the strict application of the Advanced Bionics standard in discretionary denial proceedings.

TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00134

The PTAB denied TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd.'s request to institute IPR against Maxell, Ltd.'s display apparatus patent. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and the petitioner's relative lateness in filing.

patent instituted · Apr 11, 2024

TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00120

The Director vacated the institution decision in a dispute involving TCL and Maxell, denying the IPR based on an error in weighing discretionary factors. The denial relates to patent 10375341.

TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00120

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for TCL Electronics against Maxell regarding a video display patent. The Board found that the Petitioner presented a strong challenge based on prior art Acharya, despite parallel district court litigation.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Apr 11, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2025-00074

The PTAB denied Apple's IPR against Proxense because a related review of the same patent had already been instituted in another proceeding.

Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC

· IPR2025-00075

Apple Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Proxense, LLC’s patent claims were obvious over multiple combinations of prior art references (Dua, Giobbi '157, Kotola). The Board found all 20 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

patent terminated or settled · Apr 10, 2024

Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00007

Trina Solar, Evervolt and petitioners have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,722,104, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided the merits, allowing termination under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

Tecan Group AG petitions the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR filed by Integrated DNA Technologies, arguing the Panel misapplied expert testimony and misread the Meyer prior art. The request also cites policy concerns over multiple overlapping petitions.

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

The PTAB denied Integrated DNA Technologies' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Tecan Group's patents, leaving the institution rulings in place.

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response to the PTAB Director’s review request, defending the institution of an IPR against its DNA‑sequencing patents. The petitioner argues the Board acted within policy, relied properly on the Meyer reference, and did not abuse discretion.

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG

IDT has filed an IPR petition challenging Tecan’s ’108 NGS library‑preparation patent, asserting that the Meyer publication anticipates most claims and that the remaining claims are obvious. The petition also argues against discretionary denial.

Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00007

Runergy has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 11 claims of Trina Solar’s 9,722,104 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and argues discretionary denial does not apply.

patent instituted · Apr 10, 2024

Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-00005

Solus Advanced Materials petitions an IPR against SK nexilis’s 9,457,541 copper‑foil patent, asserting that claims 1‑4 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition cites Fintiv and Advanced Bionics factors to argue for institution.

Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG