US PTAB IP Litigation

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00065

Samsung Electronics' IPR challenge against SiOnyx, LLC was denied by the PTAB due to significant overlap with parallel district court litigation. The Board exercised its discretion under Fintiv guidance, prioritizing efficiency over the merits of the invalidity arguments.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00064

The PTAB denied Samsung Electronics' IPR petition against SiOnyx, LLC due to significant overlap with a parallel district court case. The Board found that the proximity of the trial date and overlapping issues outweighed the Petitioner’s strong merits arguments regarding anticipation and obviousness in semiconductor technology.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00061

Google and Motorola Mobility successfully had their patentability challenge instituted against Multifold International's '007 patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 based on prior art references Purcell and Nicholas, advancing the dispute to trial.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00060

The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,842,080 B2 based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. Petitioner successfully argued that prior art references (Ogawa, Yook et al., Choi) render the patent claims unpatentable. The case is now set for trial.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00059

Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge Multifold International's patent 9141135 on grounds of obviousness (103). The PTAB institution decision adopted a broader claim construction for 'displays information selectively across the annunciator window,' allowing the case to proceed to trial.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.

Amazon's IPR petition against B.S.D. Crown, Ltd. was denied after the Board maintained its finding that Petitioner lacked a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits. The denial hinged on the Board adopting a conjunctive construction for key claim terms and finding no prior art disclosed all necessary components.

Google LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00058

Google and Motorola challenged Multifold's patent on user interface technology based on anticipation and obviousness. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim was unpatentable, moving the case toward trial.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.

Amazon's request for Director Review regarding the institution denial of patent 8934887 was denied. Although the Board misapprehended one figure, the Panel upheld the conjunctive claim construction based on the full intrinsic record.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.

Amazon's attempt to invalidate B.S.D. Crown's '887 patent failed before the PTAB, with the Board denying the IPR petition. The denial hinged on Amazon failing to adequately address a key claim construction—the conjunctive nature of an element related to hardware action.

patent

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.

The Director granted review and vacated the denial of institution in an Amazon v. B.S.D. Crown IPR, remanding the case for further proceedings to resolve a disputed claim term.

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP

· IPR2025-00056

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully challenged a pharmaceutical patent (11260061) in an IPR, showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board's decision hinged on extensive claim construction, particularly defining 'adsorbed onto a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.'

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP

· IPR2025-00055

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully secured the institution of IPR against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP regarding patent 9,486,407. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that prior art (Dohil) renders Claim 35 obvious.

Dr. Falk Pharma GMBH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP

· IPR2025-00054

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP's patent (11,246,828) over orally disintegrating tablet claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on prior art showing obviousness.

Arthrex, Inc. et al. v.Medshape, Inc.

· IPR2025-00053

The PTAB denied Arthrex's IPR petition against Medshape's patent (7985222), citing the complex and overlapping nature of co-pending district court litigation.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.

· IPR2025-00050

Amazon successfully challenged NL Giken's patent (US 10880592) in the PTAB, leading to institution on claims 1-3 and 5. The petitioner argued that prior art references Walker and Chang rendered the claims obvious in the context of digital broadcasting systems.

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP

· IPR2025-00052

Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP's patent (10632069). The review challenges claims 1-17 based on obviousness over prior art, including Dohil and FDA guidance.

Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn, LLC

· IPR2025-00044

The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Innolux Corporation against Phenix Longhorn, LLC regarding LCD Gamma Correction technology. The denial was based primarily on Petitioner's failure to properly construct 'means-plus-function' limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.

Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.

· IPR2025-00049

The PTAB denied Digital Global Systems' IPR against DeepSig Inc.'s patent, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.

Innolux Corporation v.Phenix Longhorn LLC

· IPR2025-00043

The PTAB denied Innolux Corporation's IPR petition against Phenix Longhorn LLC, citing the proximity of a parallel district court trial date to the statutory deadline.

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00040

Motorola and Google successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Multifold International for patent 9134756, focusing on dual-screen UI technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under both anticipation (Yook/Purcell) and obviousness grounds.

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00041

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Motorola and Google against Multifold, challenging 11 claims of patent 9058153. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioners would prevail on unpatentability grounds based on prior art.

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00038

Motorola and Google successfully secured institution in this IPR against Multifold International regarding dual screen image capture technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, despite the Patent Owner's arguments for narrow claim construction.

Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00039

Motorola and Google challenged Multifold's patent claims regarding multi-screen device interfaces under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.