US PTAB IP Litigation

patent terminated or settled · Apr 17, 2024

NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.

· IPR2024-00812

NeoGenomics and Natera have filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks limited disclosure and asserts no filing fee is due.

NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.

· IPR2024-00812

NeoGenomics and Natera have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,519,035 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided on institution.

Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.

Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation have jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The request seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit disclosure to parties with good cause.

Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Apr 17, 2024

Qorvo (via IQE PLC) petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 24 claims of Cornell’s ’360 epitaxial‑growth patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references under §103. The petition stresses strong discretionary factors favoring institution.

Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.

Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,250,360 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues that termination aligns with public policy favoring settlements.

Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Apr 17, 2024

Court decision.

Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.

patent null · Apr 17, 2024

Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,250,360, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review by joint motion. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.

Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC v.Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00815

Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC instituted an IPR against Flex-Chem Holding Company's patent (9944843) concerning Well Stimulation/Acidizing technology. The petition asserts that the claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 based on prior art references, including Frenier and Reyes.

patent null · Apr 17, 2024

NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.

· IPR2024-00812

NeoGenomics challenges Natera's patent covering cell-free DNA analysis methods in an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that the claimed method is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references, including Forshew and Pieprzyk/May.

patent null · Apr 17, 2024

Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.

patent denied · Apr 17, 2024

Qorvo challenges 24 claims of a semiconductor fabrication patent (7250360) in an IPR petition, asserting that the claimed epitaxial growth and nucleation processes are obvious. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references including Urashima, Guo, Nagata, Keiper, and Manabe to demonstrate lack of novelty.

Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC v.Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00815

The PTAB denied Pharaoh Energy Services' petition to institute IPR proceedings against Flex-Chem for patent 9944843, citing a lack of compelling merits. The Board found that the cumulative weight of Fintiv factors and insufficient technical basis in the petitioner’s evidence led to the denial.

The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00737

The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,756,680 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.

The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00724

The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,649,909, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial.

The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00740

The Integration Group and SitePro settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,726,504 B2 before the IPR was instituted, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.

The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00739

The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,898,014, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.

patent · Apr 15, 2024

The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00741

Court decision.

The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00742

The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,294,403 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).

patent · Apr 15, 2024

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.

· IPR2024-00676

Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that allowed InfoExpress’s network‑security patent to survive. They argue the Board improperly accepted arguments incorporated by reference, violating USPTO rules.

The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00738

The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 9,342,078. They jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding without a final written decision.

The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00724

The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,649,909. They have filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317, citing public‑policy support for settlement.

The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00738

The Integration Group of America and SitePro settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,342,078 before trial. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board granted the termination, treating the settlement as confidential.

The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00742

The IPR against SitePro’s patent 11,294,403 was terminated after the parties settled the dispute, including related district‑court litigation, before any trial was instituted.

The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.

· IPR2024-00740

The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 11,762,504, and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.