US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 32 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Oct 2, 2025
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
· PGR2025-00032
The PTAB held that Neurocrine Biosciences' challenge succeeded; claims 1‑25 of Spruce Biosciences' ’908 patent were found unpatentable for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). The Board applied Ariad standards and rejected the genus claim.
patent · Oct 2, 2025
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
· PGR2025-00032
Neurocrine Biosciences has filed a PTAB post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate Spruce Biosciences’ 11,007,201 patent covering CRF1 receptor antagonists for congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The petition alleges anticipation, obviousness, and lack of written description. Discretionary denial is contested.
patent · Oct 2, 2025
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
· PGR2025-00032
Neurocrine Biosciences has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Spruce Biosciences' U.S. Patent 10,849,908 covering CRF1 receptor antagonists for congenital adrenal hyperplasia, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and that prior art anticipates or renders obvious the claims.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 2, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2025-00484
Samsung and Headwater have settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and withdrawing pending review requests.
patent · Oct 2, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2025-00484
Headwater Research filed a response to Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution. The patent owner argues the Vidal Memo recission was proper, the change‑in‑position doctrine does not apply, and discretionary denial is statutorily authorized.
patent terminated or settled · Oct 2, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2025-00483
Samsung and HEADWATER reached a settlement, leading to a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00483 and related proceedings. The petitioner withdrew its request for Director Review.
patent · Oct 2, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2025-00483
Headwater Research files a response to Samsung’s request for Director Review, defending the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution and arguing the recission of the Vidal Memo was proper and lawful.
patent · Oct 2, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2025-00457
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR into Cerence’s handwriting‑recognition patent, alleging abuse of discretion and statutory violations.
patent · Oct 2, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2025-00484
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review contesting the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR on patent 9,609,510. The petition alleges due‑process violations, APA breaches, and unconstitutional discretionary denial practices.
patent · Oct 2, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
· IPR2025-00483
Samsung has filed a Petition for Director Review contesting the USPTO’s denial of institution for IPR 2025‑00483, arguing that the agency’s retroactive policy change violated due process, the APA, and statutory deadlines.
patent denied · Oct 2, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2025-00457
Samsung’s request for Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent was rejected. The Board affirmed its discretionary denial under § 314(a) after finding all Fintiv factors weighed against institution.
patent denied · Oct 2, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2025-00457
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for a review of the earlier decision that refused to institute an IPR against Cerence’s patent 7,680,334. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
patent · Oct 2, 2025
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
· IPR2025-00384
Murata seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its high‑Q passive RF component patent, alleging procedural errors, an erroneous priority claim, and misuse of the new “settled expectations” factor.
patent · Oct 2, 2025
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
· IPR2025-00457
Samsung has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00457; Cerence may respond within five business days.
patent denied · Oct 2, 2025
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
· IPR2025-00383
Murata Manufacturing’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR was rejected. The Board affirmed the Director’s discretionary denial, emphasizing a holistic assessment and the Fintiv factors.
patent denied · Oct 2, 2025
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
· IPR2025-00383
The USPTO Director denied Murata's request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00383, leaving the Georgia Tech patent intact.
patent denied · Oct 2, 2025
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
· IPR2025-00384
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of institution for Murata’s challenge to Georgia Tech’s ’914 patent, finding no legal error in the decision.
patent · Oct 2, 2025
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
· IPR2025-00383
Murata challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against a Georgia Tech RF amplifier patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and ignored strong merits and Fintiv factors.
patent denied · Oct 2, 2025
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00345
Google’s request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR on SoundClear’s 2015 noise‑reduction patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the petitioner failed to overcome settled‑expectations and the discretionary standards under 35 U.S.C. §314.
patent denied · Oct 2, 2025
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
· IPR2025-00384
The USPTO Director denied Murata Manufacturing’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR against Georgia Tech’s patent. The denial hinged on untimely filing and discovery burdens.
patent · Oct 2, 2025
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00345
Google has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on SoundClear’s decade‑old audio‑processing patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations guidance, created an unlawful time bar, and ignored the merits and district‑court stays.
patent · Oct 2, 2025
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00344
Google has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against SoundClear’s decade‑old echo‑cancellation patent. The petitioner contends the Board improperly created a time‑based bar and ignored the district‑court stays and merits of the petition.
patent denied · Oct 2, 2025
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00344
Google’s request for Director Review of an IPR against SoundClear’s LED‑notification patent was denied. The Board affirmed that settled expectations and Fintiv factors justified the discretionary denial.
patent denied · Oct 2, 2025
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
· IPR2025-00345
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for a review of the decision to deny institution of two IPRs against SoundClear Technologies’ patent 9,031,259. The order leaves the institution denial in place.
