US PTAB IP Litigation

Neurocrine Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Spruce Biosciences’ 12,115,166 patent covering a broad genus of CRF1 receptor antagonists for CAH, arguing lack of written description and enablement.

patent · Oct 2, 2025

Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00530

Axon and Dedrone have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of Airspace Systems' UAV‑defense patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition also argues that institution is proper under the Fintiv factors.

patent · Oct 2, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.

· IPR2025-00457

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cerence’s U.S. Patent 7,680,334 covering handwriting‑recognition methods. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute the review.

patent · Oct 2, 2025

Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00345

Google filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of SoundClear's 9,031,259 patent covering noise‑reduction apparatuses, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references and seeking institution of the review.

patent · Oct 2, 2025

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.

· IPR2025-00597

Yealink has filed an IPR petition against Barco’s 2024 video‑conferencing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier web‑conferencing systems such as Beel, Dinka, Van de Laar, and Kaplan. The petition argues the examiner missed material prior art and erred in patentability analysis.

patent · Oct 2, 2025

Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation

· IPR2025-00384

Murata has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑2 and 4‑20 of U.S. Patent 7,489,914 on the basis of obviousness over prior art references Yeh, Dalmia, and Hashemi. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and requests institution of the trial.

patent · Oct 2, 2025

Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation

· IPR2025-00383

Murata has filed an IPR petition challenging 19 claims of Georgia Tech’s 7,489,914 patent covering multi‑band RF transceivers. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over a combination of four prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.

patent · Oct 2, 2025

AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.RightQuestion, LLC

· IPR2025-00362

AT&T, Verizon and Nokia have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate RightQuestion's 2021 patent on automatic number identification, asserting that all 28 claims are obvious over prior‑art references Har and Miller.

patent · Oct 2, 2025

Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00344

Google has filed a petition for inter partes review of SoundClear’s 9,070,374 patent covering a simplex communication apparatus with visual feedback. The petition argues that all claims are obvious over IBM, Kale, and Li prior art and seeks institution of the IPR.

patent · Oct 2, 2025

Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00530

Axon and Dedrone have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Airspace Systems’ U.S. Patent 10,249,199 covering UAV discrimination and countermeasure technology. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and requests institution of the proceeding.

patent · Oct 2, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2025-00483

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 36 claims of Headwater Research's ’510 patent covering automated credential porting for mobile devices, asserting obviousness over Salmela and Rishy-Maharaj publications.

patent · Oct 2, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

· IPR2025-00484

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of Headwater Research’s ’510 patent on the basis that a combination of prior‑art references makes the claims obvious under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and that the proceeding should be instituted.

patent denied · Oct 2, 2025

Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.

· PGR2025-00032

The PTAB denied institution of a PGR for Neurocrine against Spruce because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims.

patent instituted · Oct 2, 2025

Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v.Barco N.V.

· IPR2025-00597

Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Barco N.V.'s patent, arguing obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over Beel and Dinka for at least one claim, leading to a trial date.

patent instituted · Oct 2, 2025

Axon Enterprise, Inc. et al. v.Airspace Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00530

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Axon Enterprise against Airspace Systems, challenging claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,249,199 B2 based on obviousness over prior art (Whitmarsh).

patent terminated or settled · Oct 1, 2025

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00445

HydraFacial and Eunsung Global settled their IPR dispute before the Board could institute a trial. The joint motion to terminate was granted, and the settlement agreement was kept confidential.

patent · Oct 1, 2025

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00445

Eunsung Global Corp. requests Director Review of the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against HydraFacial's hydrodermabrasion patent, arguing errors in Fintiv factor analysis and emphasizing efficiency. The Board had denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

patent terminated or settled · Oct 1, 2025

LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00444

LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,736,729 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.

patent terminated or settled · Oct 1, 2025

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00445

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00445 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,550,052. The Board has not issued a final decision, and the parties request dismissal of the proceeding.

patent terminated or settled · Oct 1, 2025

LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00444

LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,736,729, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPR before it was instituted.

patent · Oct 1, 2025

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00445

Eunsung Global and HydraFacial jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317. The request emphasizes protection of settlement amounts and private banking information.

1 •••32 33 34•••364