US PTAB IP Litigation

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University

· IPR2024-00624

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully instituted an IPR against The Johns Hopkins University's patent, challenging claims related to anti-PD-1 antibodies for MSI-high cancer. The Board found sufficient evidence that prior art anticipated and rendered the claims obvious, leading to a trial institution decision.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University

· IPR2024-00623

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully secured institution for its IPR challenge against The Johns Hopkins University regarding oncology/immunotherapy claims. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, despite procedural challenges from the Patent Owner.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University

· IPR2024-00622

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against The Johns Hopkins University regarding anti-cancer therapies using PD-1 blockade. The Board found sufficient evidence that prior art, including the MSI-H Study Record, renders several claims unpatentable.

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC

· IPR2024-00612

Meta Platforms successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against Sitnet LLC's patent 8249932, challenging claims based on obviousness over prior art. The Board accepted the Petitioner's arguments regarding claim construction and found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground.

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC

· IPR2024-00528

Meta Platforms successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Sitnet's patent 8249932, with the PTAB finding a reasonable likelihood that claims are unpatentable. The Board adopted a specific construction for 'situational network,' setting the stage for trial.

Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC

· IPR2024-00640

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed features were obvious in light of prior art references, particularly Won and Norton.

Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC

· IPR2024-00639

The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed features, including gradient compression and uniform heel platforms, were obvious in light of references like Umezawa, Gallas, Won, and Talarico '911. This outcome represents a significant loss for Athalonz, LLC regarding its footwear patent portfolio.

Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC

· IPR2024-00638

The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all eleven challenged claims unpatentable. The core finding was that the claimed athletic shoe design was obvious over prior art references (Kim and De Obaldia).

Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC

· IPR2024-00637

The PTAB found the challenged claims of Athalonz unpatentable as obvious over prior art (Kim). The Board adopted a construction that allowed the petitioner (Under Armour) to satisfy claim limitations by measuring heights relative to the sole's bottom surface.

Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC

· IPR2024-00636

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable over the prior art reference Kim. The Board concluded that the synthetic rubber construction of Kim's golf shoe supports the existence of the claimed slopes, thereby establishing obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University

· IPR2024-00625

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1-8 of the patent were unpatentable. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the MSI-H Study Record (MSR) anticipates and renders obvious most challenged claims under both § 102 and § 103. The Board ruled that the Patent Owner's objective evidence of non-obviousness was insufficient to overcome these findings.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University

· IPR2024-00623

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all seven claims of the patent were unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) based on the MSI-H Study Record, which was deemed prior art despite arguments regarding experimental use exceptions.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University

· IPR2024-00624

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of the '975 patent unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed methods and drug characteristics were anticipated (102) or rendered obvious (103) by prior art, primarily the MSI-H Study Record (MSR).

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University

· IPR2024-00622

The PTAB found all 28 challenged claims unpatentable in this IPR proceeding concerning oncology/immunotherapy. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the MSI-H Study Record inherently anticipated or rendered obvious the claimed methods under both § 102 and § 103.

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC

· IPR2024-00612

The PTAB found that claims 12-21 of patent 8249932 were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining prior art references, specifically Amidon and Walsh, to teach the claimed targeted advertising system in situational networks.

US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.

· IPR2024-00122

Senko Advanced Components files a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny US Conec’s IPR petition on claims covering a duplex fiber‑optic connector, arguing the cited prior art fails to meet every claim limitation.

US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.

· IPR2024-00122

Petitioner US Conec Ltd. filed an IPR against Senko Advanced Components' patent 11061190; the patent owner submitted a preliminary response.

Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC

Court decision.

Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC

· IPR2024-00382

Datavant and Vigilytics have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,665,685 B1. They jointly request the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.

Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC

Datavant and Vigilytics settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,886,012 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board was asked to end the case under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).

Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC

· IPR2024-00382

The PTAB terminated IPR2024-00382 after Datavant and Vigilytics reached a settlement, keeping the agreement confidential.

Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC

Datavant and Vigilytics jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2024‑00381 concerning patent 10,886,012. The PTAB granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.

patent null · Apr 1, 2024

Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC

· IPR2024-00382

Datavant and Vigilytics settled their IPR dispute over a HIPAA‑related patent and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board was asked to end the case under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).

Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC