US PTAB IP Litigation

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00214

Phison Electronics Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition to invalidate Vervain’s U.S. Patent No. 11,830,546 covering a hybrid SLC‑MLC NAND flash system. The petition alleges lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, insufficient written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Comcast and Entropic Communications settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,785,275. The Board terminated the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Comcast and Entropic Communications have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,785,275. The parties jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-00180, citing statutory authority and the lack of a merits decision. The Board is expected to grant the termination.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Entropic Communications seeks Director review to deny institution of Comcast’s IPR, arguing the petitioner’s repeated filing of parallel petitions violates USPTO guidance and burdens the PTAB. The request cites statutory discretionary‑denial authority to block the abusive filing pattern.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Entropic Communications requests Director review to block Comcast’s parallel IPR filings against its 11,785,275 patent, arguing the petitions violate statutory limits on abusive filing. The petition cites the USPTO’s 2019 guidance, which was prompted by Comcast’s own conduct.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Comcast and Entropic Communications filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00180 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’275 cable‑technology patent. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Comcast defends its three parallel IPR petitions against Entropic Communications, asserting they comply with PTAB guidance and are essential for addressing multiple invalidity grounds. The response urges the Director to reject the Patent Owner’s request for review.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Court decision.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Comcast and Entropic Communications filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 11,785,275. The parties cite 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) to protect sensitive business information.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Comcast and Entropic Communications filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR over patent 11,785,275.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

· IPR2025-00181

Comcast has filed a petition to review Entropic’s ’275 cable‑TV receiver patent, seeking cancellation of all 20 claims on obviousness grounds.

Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

· IPR2025-00252

Genius Sports seeks IPR on SportsCastr’s live‑streaming patent, arguing that 16 claims are obvious over prior art such as Ellis, Herzog, Spivey and Abulikemu, and urging the Board to institute the review.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

· IPR2025-00185

Comcast has filed a petition to cancel all 18 claims of Entropic’s ’438 cable‑network service‑group patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references that the examiner never considered.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

Comcast has filed a petition to review Entropic’s ’275 patent, asserting that all twenty claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Zhang and its combinations. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and seeks cancellation of the claims.

Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

· IPR2025-00251

Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s 11,871,088 patent covering live‑sports video and data streaming, asserting obviousness over Ellis, Spivey, Herzog and Abulikemu. The petition argues the examiner never considered key prior art and that discretionary denial is improper.

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

· IPR2025-00160

ResMed has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of Cleveland Medical Devices’ ’680 patent covering networked PAP therapy systems. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Toge, Kumar, Burton, and Kisner. The Board is asked to institute review.

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

· IPR2025-00158

ResMed Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cleveland Medical Devices' U.S. Patent 11,690,512 covering a wearable sleep diagnostic system. The petition argues that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Ciulla, Orbach, and others) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00214

Phison Electronics has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all ten claims of Vervain’s ‘240 NAND‑flash patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition cites Gavens, Moshayedi and Sutardja patents and argues that pending district‑court suits do not bar institution.

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

· IPR2025-00159

ResMed has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of Cleveland Medical Devices' ’921 patent covering a networked PAP system. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Toge, Burton, Kumar, and Kisner. It seeks institution of the review.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

· IPR2025-00182

Comcast has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Entropic’s ’275 patent covering a digital TV receiver, seeking cancellation of all 20 claims on anticipation and obviousness grounds.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

· IPR2025-00184

Comcast has filed a petition to cancel all 18 claims of Entropic’s ’438 cable‑network patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references that the examiner never considered.