US PTAB IP Litigation

MOTORTECH GmbH et al. v.--

patent terminated or settled · Oct 1, 2025

MOTORTECH filed an unopposed motion asking the PTAB to treat its settlement with Altronic as business‑confidential information and keep it separate from the IPR record. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and seeks limited access to the settlement documents.

MOTORTECH GmbH et al. v.--

patent terminated or settled · Oct 1, 2025

MotorTech and Altronic have settled their dispute, prompting an unopposed motion to terminate the pending IPR on patent 7,401,603. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.

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

· IPR2025-00444

LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement in IPR2025-00444 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement be treated as business confidential information under statutory authority.

patent terminated or settled · Oct 1, 2025

MOTORTECH GmbH et al. v.--

MotorTech and Altronic settled their IPR dispute before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceeding and keeping the settlement confidential.

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

· IPR2025-00432

Zhuhai CosMX Battery seeks to invalidate Ningde Amperex’s 2023 lithium‑ion battery separator patent by alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests the PTAB to institute an IPR under Section 325(d).

MOTORTECH GmbH et al. v.--

Motortech has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of U.S. Patent 7,401,603 covering capacitive discharge ignition systems. The petition argues obviousness over a 1992 research disclosure combined with prior patents Grather and Lepley‑I, and disputes any discretionary denial.

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

· IPR2025-00246

ResMed has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 15‑29 of Cleveland Medical Devices’ ’333 patent covering networked CPAP therapy. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references Toge, Kumar, Norman and Burton. No secondary considerations are offered and the Board is asked to institute the review.

Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00445

Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of HydraFacial's microdermabrasion console patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner never considered the cited combinations and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

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

· IPR2025-00444

LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Maxell’s ’729 electric‑camera patent, arguing that all four claims are obvious over prior‑art cameras. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cites favorable discretionary‑denial factors.

patent instituted · Oct 1, 2025

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

· IPR2025-00247

ResMed has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cleveland Medical Devices’ ’029 PAP‑therapy patent, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over prior‑art PAP devices and telemedicine systems.

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

· IPR2025-00432

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in its IPR against Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.'s patent, focusing on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found that the petitioner adequately showed Murakami discloses key features and that combinations with Beard and Akiike were motivated and predictable.

patent instituted · Oct 1, 2025

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

· IPR2025-00247

ResMed Corp. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Cleveland Medical Devices regarding a patent covering sleep disorder treatment/CPAP systems. The Board found that ResMed demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Grounds 1-3, which centered on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).

patent instituted · Oct 1, 2025

ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

· IPR2025-00246

ResMed Corp. successfully challenged Cleveland Medical Devices' sleep apnea monitoring patent via IPR, arguing the claims were obvious over combinations of prior art references. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, leading to institution.

Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v.Klein Tools, Inc.

· PGR2025-00080

Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. filed a PGR petition challenging four claims of Klein Tools' safety‑helmet patent, asserting lack of written description, added matter, obviousness over multiple helmet references, and anticipation by Klein's 2019 news release.

SHENZHEN QIANFENYI INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.Wacom Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-01596

Shenzhen Qianfenyi petitions the PTAB to invalidate Wacom’s 2018 stylus patent, asserting that its tilt‑detection claims are obvious over prior‑art Yoshida combined with either Ikeda or Iguchi. The petition lists two 35 U.S.C. §103 grounds covering 21 claims.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Massively Broadband LLC

· IPR2025-01594

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 39 claims of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 10,224,999, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of six prior‑art references.