US PTAB IP Litigation

The PTAB held that Neurocrine Biosciences' challenge succeeded; claims 1‑25 of Spruce Biosciences' ’908 patent were found unpatentable for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). The Board applied Ariad standards and rejected the genus claim.

Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.

Neurocrine Biosciences has filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate Spruce Biosciences’ 11,007,201 patent covering CRF1 receptor antagonists for congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The petition alleges anticipation, obviousness, and lack of written description. Discretionary denial is contested.

Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.

Neurocrine Biosciences has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Spruce Biosciences' U.S. Patent 10,849,908 covering CRF1 receptor antagonists for congenital adrenal hyperplasia, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and that prior art anticipates or renders obvious the claims.

patent terminated or settled · Oct 2, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2025-00484

Headwater Research filed a response to Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution. The patent owner argues the Vidal Memo recission was proper, the change‑in‑position doctrine does not apply, and discretionary denial is statutorily authorized.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2025-00483

Samsung and HEADWATER reached a settlement, leading to a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00483 and related proceedings. The petitioner withdrew its request for Director Review.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.

patent denied · Oct 2, 2025

Samsung has filed a request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR into Cerence’s handwriting‑recognition patent, alleging abuse of discretion and statutory violations.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.

Samsung’s request for Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent was rejected. The Board affirmed its discretionary denial under § 314(a) after finding all Fintiv factors weighed against institution.

Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation

· IPR2025-00384

Murata seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its high‑Q passive RF component patent, alleging procedural errors, an erroneous priority claim, and misuse of the new “settled expectations” factor.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.

patent denied · Oct 2, 2025

Samsung has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00457; Cerence may respond within five business days.

Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation

· IPR2025-00384

The USPTO Director denied Murata Manufacturing’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR against Georgia Tech’s patent. The denial hinged on untimely filing and discovery burdens.

Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00345

Google has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on SoundClear’s decade‑old audio‑processing patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations guidance, created an unlawful time bar, and ignored the merits and district‑court stays.

Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00344

Google seeks a PTAB Director Review of SoundClear’s echo‑cancellation patent; the Patent Owner has a five‑day window to respond without new evidence.

Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00530

Axon and Dedrone have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of Airspace Systems' UAV‑defense patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition also argues that institution is proper under the Fintiv factors.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cerence’s U.S. Patent 7,680,334 covering handwriting‑recognition methods. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute the review.

Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00345

Google filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of SoundClear's 9,031,259 patent covering noise‑reduction apparatuses, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references and seeking institution of the review.

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.

· IPR2025-00597

Yealink has filed an IPR petition against Barco’s 2024 video‑conferencing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier web‑conferencing systems such as Beel, Dinka, Van de Laar, and Kaplan. The petition argues the examiner missed material prior art and erred in patentability analysis.

Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation

· IPR2025-00384

Murata has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2 and 4‑20 of U.S. Patent 7,489,914 on the basis of obviousness over prior art references Yeh, Dalmia, and Hashemi. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and requests institution of the trial.

Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation

· IPR2025-00383

Murata has filed an IPR petition challenging 19 claims of Georgia Tech’s 7,489,914 patent covering multi‑band RF transceivers. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over a combination of four prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.

Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00344

Google has filed a petition for inter partes review of SoundClear’s 9,070,374 patent covering a simplex communication apparatus with visual feedback. The petition argues that all claims are obvious over IBM, Kale, and Li prior art and seeks institution of the IPR.

Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00530

Axon and Dedrone have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Airspace Systems’ U.S. Patent 10,249,199 covering UAV discrimination and countermeasure technology. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and requests institution of the proceeding.

patent denied · Oct 2, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2025-00484

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of Headwater Research’s ’510 patent on the basis that a combination of prior‑art references makes the claims obvious under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that the proceeding should be instituted.

Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.