US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 281 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent instituted
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
· PGR2025-00067
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00067 in a dispute between Samsung and XiFi Networks, allowing the challenge to proceed.
patent denied
Election Systems & Software, LLC v.Hart InterCivic, Inc.
· PGR2025-00066
The USPTO Board denied institution for PGR2025-00066 after reviewing the merits. The denial was based on the petitioner failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were unpatentable.
patent denied
North Sails Group, LLC v.Team New Zealand Limited et al.
· PGR2025-00062
The PTAB denied institution of the post-grant review (PGR) for patent 12110089, finding that North Sails Group failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenged claims.
patent instituted
GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
· PGR2025-00059
GE Healthcare Ltd.'s Post-Grant Review petition against The Johns Hopkins University was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness and statutory defects. The Board acknowledged strong arguments regarding combining prior art (US-633/Meletta with Jansen) and potential lack of enablement for radiopharmaceutical claims.
patent denied
SCIENTIFIC DRILLING INTERNATIONAL, INC. v.Gunnar LLLP
· PGR2025-00061
The PTAB denied institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR) for patent 12110780. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the claims were unpatentable.
patent denied
Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
· PGR2025-00056
The PTAB denied institution for the petitioner's IPR challenge against a wireless device patent related to antenna complexity. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate an ordinary skilled artisan would be motivated to combine prior art references, specifically because such combinations violated critical spatial diversity requirements of the patented invention.
patent instituted
Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.
· PGR2025-00057
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00057, allowing the challenger to proceed with trial against patent 12234236.
patent instituted
Straumann USA, LLC et al. v.Smart Denture Conversions, LLC.
· PGR2025-00054
Straumann USA successfully petitioned for institution in a Post-Grant Review challenging Smart Denture Conversions' dental implant patent (12156781). The Board found likelihood of unpatentability based on indefiniteness and lack of written description/enablement. This sets a precedent regarding the sufficiency of disclosure in complex medical device claims.
patent instituted
Almendra Pte. Ltd. et al. v.Fienile Agronecócios LTDA
· PGR2025-00055
The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00055, allowing the challenge to proceed to merits review after determining a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
patent instituted
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00053
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Halozyme, Inc.'s patent (12195773) based on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board found it likely that the claims defining a vast genus of modified polypeptides are unpatentable due to insufficient disclosure regarding solubility and activity prediction.
patent instituted
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00052
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Halozyme, Inc.'s claims covering a genus of modified PH20 polypeptides. The Board found that the broad scope of the claimed variants lacked adequate written description and enablement support in the original patent disclosure. This decision significantly challenges the breadth of the patented technology in hyaluronidase drug development.
patent instituted
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00046
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent on hyaluronidase polypeptides under grounds of enablement and obviousness. The PTAB granted institution, finding the claims cover a vast genus that requires undue experimentation to fully enable.
patent instituted
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00050
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Halozyme's PH20 polypeptide claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description and enablement. The Board instituted the petition, finding that the specification broadly defines a 'modified PH20 polypeptide' but lacked sufficient examples to support the vast scope of multiply-substituted variants claimed.
patent denied
Syngenta Crop Protection AG v.Inflexion Point Technologies, LLC
· PGR2025-00045
Syngenta Crop Protection AG's petition to invalidate Inflexion Point Technologies' patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence of anticipation or obviousness across multiple grounds, rejecting all challenges including enablement.
patent instituted
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00042
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s '618 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness regarding modified PH20 polypeptides. The PTAB adopted a functional claim construction requiring hyaluronidase activity for the claimed genus.
patent instituted
Toyota Motor Corp. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC
· PGR2025-00041
Toyota Motor Corp. successfully petitioned to challenge AutoConnect Holdings LLC's patent, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on grounds of obviousness (103) and patent eligibility (101). The Board found it likely that multiple claims are unpatentable over prior art references like Hendry.
patent instituted
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
· PGR2025-00040
AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR petition against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, leading to a trial on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (102/103) and indefiniteness (112). The Board preliminarily adopted all three constructions proposed by the Petitioner for element [1.C], setting up complex claim construction issues for trial.
patent instituted
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00039
Merck Sharp & Dohme successfully challenged Halozyme's patent claims in a PGR proceeding, focusing on enablement and obviousness. The Board adopted a functional claim construction requiring 'modified PH20 polypeptide' to exhibit hyaluronidase activity.
patent instituted
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00033
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent claims on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board ruled that the claimed modified polypeptides must exhibit hyaluronidase activity, narrowing the scope of the genus. This decision sets a precedent for interpreting functional limitations in polypeptide patents.
patent denied
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
· PGR2025-00037
Ascend Elements, Inc.'s petition against Duesenfeld GmbH's battery recycling patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability based on obviousness or indefiniteness across all challenged claims.
patent denied
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
· PGR2025-00032
The PTAB denied institution of a PGR for Neurocrine against Spruce because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims.
patent instituted
GD Energy Products, LLC v.Kerr Machine Company
· PGR2025-00031
GD Energy Products successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Kerr Machine Company's pump patent, alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found it more likely than not that at least one claim would be unpatentable over various prior art references related to fluid end assemblies.
patent instituted
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
· PGR2025-00030
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned for institution in a PGR proceeding against Halozyme, Inc., challenging the '758 patent on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board adopted a broad claim construction for 'modified PH20 polypeptide,' which significantly broadened the scope of the challenged claims.
patent instituted
AdvanCell Pty Ltd. v.Sciencons AS et al.
· PGR2025-00029
AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, finding sufficient evidence that several claims are unpatentable. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of a key time-based limitation in Claim 20 during the institution phase.
