US PTAB IP Litigation

AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.

· IPR2024-00310

AT&T and other carriers challenged Daingean Technologies' patent (US 10,932,207) in an IPR petition. The challengers argue that the claims related to random access procedures and power control are anticipated or obvious by prior art references Lee1 and Lee2.

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

· IPR2024-00287

Dropbox, Inc., the petitioner, challenges Motion Offense LLC's patent (US 11611520) in an IPR proceeding. The core argument is that the claimed cloud storage and file transfer methods are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Riepling, Manzano, Meisels, and Garcia.

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

· IPR2024-00286

Dropbox, Inc. filed a Petition challenging Motion Offense LLC's patent (11611520) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed file sharing and folder synchronization features are predictable combinations of prior art references like Houston, Garcia, Manzano, and Wu.

WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.

· IPR2024-00220

WIZ, Inc. filed a petition challenging Orca Security Ltd.'s patent via IPR, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Veselov and Basavapatna. The petitioner argues that combining these two references teaches every limitation of the challenged cloud security claims.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

· IPR2024-00270

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.'s patent 11108595. The Board found the petition particularly strong on the merits and favorable regarding Fintiv factors.

National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.

· IPR2024-00186

National Beef Packing Company challenged the '771 patent on obviousness grounds related to modular compositing and microbial testing protocols. The PTAB institution decision was driven by parallel district court litigation and a compelling merits case presented by the petitioner. This sets up significant future challenges in both administrative and judicial forums.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC

· IPR2024-00207

Motorola Solutions challenges STA Group's 8145249 patent, arguing that its core technology for mixing disparate communication streams is obvious over prior art. The petition asserts multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) using references like Botha and combinations involving Radenkovic and McDonald.

National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.

· IPR2024-00185

National Beef Packing Company challenged the validity of Patent 8,822,143 based on obviousness (Grounds 1-3). The Board denied institution because the Fintiv factors did not support discretionary denial.

National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.

· IPR2024-00183

National Beef Packing Company challenged the validity of a food safety patent (7534584) before PTAB, arguing obviousness over prior art like ICMSF and Gombas. The Board decided to institute the IPR based on Fintiv factors, allowing the challenger to proceed with its invalidity arguments.

Univacco Technology Inc. v.LEONHARD KURZ Stiftung & Co., KG

· PGR2026-00011

The PTAB denied institution for PGR2026-00011, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the required standard of likelihood of prevailing or unpatentability.

Kia America, Inc. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC

· PGR2026-00008

The PTAB denied institution of the Post-Grant Review (PGR) for Kia America against Emerging Automotive, finding the petitioner failed to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard.

Wella Operations US LLC v.Olaplex, Inc.

· PGR2026-00010

The USPTO Office issued a notice detailing multiple institution decisions across various IPR and PGR proceedings.

Shuttleslide, LLC v.Sea Swivel Inc.

· PGR2025-00089

The USPTO Board denied institution for PGR2025-00089 because the petitioner failed to meet the likelihood of success standard required under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).

WHOOP, Inc. v.Omni MedSci, Inc.

· PGR2026-00003

The USPTO Board granted institution for PGR2026-00003 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

Alvotech USA Inc. et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· PGR2025-00085

The PTAB granted institution for the PGR proceeding (PGR2025-00085) involving Alvotech and Regeneron regarding patent 12168036. The petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard.

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals

· PGR2025-00086

The PTAB granted institution for the PGR proceeding involving Dr. Falk Pharma and Ellodi Pharmaceuticals, allowing the challenge to move forward.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.

· PGR2025-00082

The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00082 after reviewing discretionary and non-discretionary considerations. The petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the challenged claims are unpatentable.

Cytek Biosciences, Inc. v.Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00084

The PTAB denied institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR2025-00084) because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that any challenged patent claims were unpatentable.

OneSource Solutions International, Inc. et al. v.Hippocratic AI, Inc.

· PGR2025-00075

The PTAB denied institution of the Post-Grant Review (PGR) in a dispute involving Hippocratic AI's patent 12142371, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the necessary likelihood of prevailing standard.

Nicholson Manufacturing Ltd. et al. v.BID GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

· PGR2025-00081

The USPTO Board issued mixed institution decisions across multiple IPR and PGR proceedings. Several cases were granted for trial based on likelihood of prevailing, while others were denied due to lack of merit or discretionary concerns.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

· PGR2025-00071

The USPTO Board issued mixed institution decisions across several IPR and PGR proceedings. Some cases were denied based on efficiency or prior rulings, while others proceeded to merits review.

Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.

· PGR2025-00070

The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00070 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of success. This allows the patent challenge to proceed to a merits trial phase.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

· PGR2025-00069

The Board granted institution for the PGR proceeding involving Samsung and XiFi Networks, allowing the challenge to proceed based on likelihood of prevailing or unpatentability.