US PTAB IP Litigation

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II

· IPR2025-00339

Tesla, Inc. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding its digital imaging patents (7916180). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 16 challenged claims based on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00321

The PTAB decided to institute the IPR petition challenging Patent No. 9,421,713 B2 based on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in additive manufacturing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by prior art (Boyer).

GOOGLE LLC v.EscapeX IP LLC

· IPR2025-00337

Google successfully secured institution of IPR against EscapeX IP over a social networking patent, challenging 24 claims based on obviousness.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00311

The PTAB institution decision found Petitioner's arguments of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 sufficiently meritorious to proceed. The Board specifically noted that Claim 1 was likely unpatentable over Mazumder and Mori, adopting the petitioner’s definition of ordinary skill in the art.

Microsoft Corporation v.ParTec AG

· IPR2025-00318

Microsoft Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against ParTec AG's patent, challenging claims related to heterogeneous computing and dynamic task remapping. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art combinations (Lippert, Budenske, Kambatla).

Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC

· IPR2025-00308

Twitch Interactive successfully challenged a patent claim in the PTAB, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board adopted Petitioner's narrow construction of 'real time,' favoring transmission upon availability without significant delay over strict human-perception timing.

Twitch Interactive, Inc. et al. v.Razdog Holdings LLC

· IPR2025-00307

Twitch Interactive successfully secured institution of its § 103 IPR challenge against Razdog Holdings LLC's patent. The Board adopted the Petitioner's interpretation of 'real time,' allowing the case to proceed to trial on all claims.

X Corp. v.Sterling Computers Corporation

· IPR2025-00299

X Corp.'s IPR petition against Sterling Computers Corporation's patent (7716217) was instituted, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board found that combining Kircher and Krug would motivate a POSITA to improve relevance scoring in email content ranking.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.

· IPR2025-00301

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Intel and others against Collision Communications regarding wireless multiuser detection claims. The denial was based on the Fintiv factors, noting that the parallel district court trial date was too close to the Board's statutory deadline.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00298

Tessell, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Nutanix, Inc., regarding database provisioning technology. The Board found that Tessell demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over multiple prior art combinations.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00298

The Director denied institution of an IPR in the Tessell v. Nutanix case, citing administrative inefficiency because the petitioner includes nearly all inventors of the challenged patent.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.

· IPR2025-00289

Imperative Care challenges Inari Medical's hemostasis valve patent (11554005) on obviousness grounds. The PTAB instituted the IPR, requiring further review of claims 1-15 based on prior art combinations.

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2025-00294

The PTAB denied Micron's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory because the patent owner had successfully filed a statutory disclaimer covering all challenged claims related to 3D memory devices.

Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v.AbTis Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-00283

Ajinomoto Co., Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against AbTis Co., Ltd.'s patent (11896675) covering Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs). The Board found sufficient evidence for institution on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness regarding claim 11.

Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.

· IPR2025-00285

The PTAB denied Lenovo and Motorola's request to institute IPR against Collision Communications regarding patent 6947505. The denial was based on the Petitioner failing to show a reasonable likelihood of success, mirroring a prior adverse ruling in related proceedings.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00281

The PTAB denied a Patent Owner's request for Director Review, instead remanding the IPR cases to allow discovery on complex real parties in interest (RPI) and privity issues related to concurrent district court litigation.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00281

The Director reviewed multiple IPRs against Birchtech Corp., instructing the Board to limit parallel proceedings for each patent based on RPI requirements following a PacifiCorp precedent.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00280

The Director denied the Patent Owner's request for review, remanding multiple IPR cases to allow discovery on complex RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00280

The Director reviewed multiple IPRs involving Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Birchtech Corp., remanding the cases to the Board to consolidate parallel proceedings under a single petition per patent.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00278

The Director remanded multiple parallel IPRs challenging several patents to the Board, instructing them to consolidate proceedings and maintain only one petition per patent based on RPI determinations.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00278

The PTAB denied a patent owner's request for Director Review, but remanded multiple IPR cases to allow discovery on complex RPI and privity issues related to time-bar defenses.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00274

The Director remanded multiple IPRs involving Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Birchtech Corp., limiting the scope of challenges to one petition per patent based on precedent regarding parallel proceedings.

Microsoft Corporation v.Sterling Computers Corporation

· IPR2025-00270

The PTAB granted institution for Microsoft's IPR against Sterling Computers, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for at least one claim (Claim 13). The Board adopted a construction of 'relational references' as simple pointers, rejecting the Patent Owner's requirement for a full relational model.