US PTAB IP Litigation

HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels

· IPR2025-00234

The USPTO denied HighLevel, Inc.'s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00234, leaving the patent owned by ClickFunnels intact.

Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd

The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00172 concerning patent 9,022,294. The institution decision remains in effect, leaving the challenged patent intact.

HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels

· IPR2025-00235

HighLevel has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of ClickFunnels’ website‑builder patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also requests the Board not to deny institution under the Fintiv discretionary standard.

HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels

· IPR2025-00234

HighLevel, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of ClickFunnels' website‑creation patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references. The petition also requests that the Board not invoke discretionary denial under the Fintiv precedent.

Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd.

· IPR2025-00173

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of DH International’s ’333 patent covering a portable electronic device with an invariable activation command, asserting obviousness over McGregor, Palmer, and Tuttle references.

Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of DH International’s ’294 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Suga and Gorsuch. The petition requests institution and argues no discretionary denial grounds exist.

HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels

· IPR2025-00235

The PTAB denied HighLevel, Inc.'s request to institute IPR against Etison LLC's website creation patent. The denial was based on the parallel District Court finding that the claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels

· IPR2025-00234

The PTAB denied HighLevel's IPR against ClickFunnels, citing the efficiency of the patent system. The denial was based on a parallel District Court finding that the challenged claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

patent instituted · Mar 12, 2024

Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd.

· IPR2025-00173

The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against DH International Ltd., finding insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments, specifically criticizing the Petitioner's use of hindsight in mapping prior art limitations onto the claimed electronic device.

Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Mar 12, 2024

Apple successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against DH International Ltd's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over Suga in view of Gorsuch. The Board preliminarily construed key terms like 'invariable activation command,' finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the challenged claims.

Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd

The PTAB determined that all 20 challenged claims of the '294 patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, finding obviousness over combinations of Suga and Gorsuch. The Board successfully rejected the Patent Owner's attempts to narrow key claim terms, upholding the Petitioner's broad interpretation of functional language.

patent · Mar 10, 2024

Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

Runergy and its affiliates have filed a joint motion with Trina Solar and Evervolt to terminate their participation in IPR2025-00006 after settling all disputes, including a related ITC proceeding.

patent · Mar 10, 2024

Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

patent instituted · Mar 10, 2024

Runergy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Trina Solar’s 009 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering TOPCon solar cell structures.

Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

patent final · Mar 10, 2024

The PTAB institution decision granted the petitioner a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all challenged claims related to solar cell technology. The grounds for obviousness centered on combining prior art references like Jin and Feldmann to achieve predictable improvements in TOPCon structure efficiency.

Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all 17 challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board found specific combinations of prior art, notably Chang and Jin, rendered the claimed solar cell structures obvious.

patent · Mar 9, 2024

Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.

patent denied · Mar 9, 2024

EMKinetics challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that invalidated 13 claims of U.S. Patent 11,224,742, arguing the Board relied on unsupported presumptions of public accessibility and improperly admitted new evidence as rebuttal. The Patent Owner seeks Director Review to vacate the decision.

Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.

Avation Medical’s IPR resulted in claims 1‑13 of U.S. Patent 11,224,742 being found unpatentable. EMKinetics sought Director Review, re‑asserting printed‑publication arguments, but the Board denied the request, upholding its decision.

patent · Mar 9, 2024

Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.

patent instituted · Mar 9, 2024

Avation Medical has filed an IPR petition challenging EMKinetics' U.S. Patent 11,224,742 covering non‑invasive posterior tibial nerve stimulation for overactive bladder. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Svihra, Amarenco, Mann and Ponsford and seeks institution of the trial.

Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.

patent final · Mar 9, 2024

Avation Medical successfully secured the institution of its IPR against EMKinetics, challenging claims 1-13 based on obviousness over combinations of prior art. The Board found that Petitioner adequately supported unpatentability by demonstrating skilled artisans could make the claimed modifications to existing nerve stimulation methods.

Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.