US PTAB IP Litigation

Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.

· IPR2025-01171

MOSAID Technologies has filed a Director review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 7,051,306 patent. The request contends that Infineon’s petition inconsistently handles claim constructions already litigated in district court, violating Board guidance and warranting reversal of the institution.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01252

Apple, on behalf of Samsung, filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 patent covering wearable optical health monitors. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art (Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer) and seeks institution of the review.

Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01161

Google has filed a Petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO Director’s denial of institution for patent 7,804,891, alleging statutory and procedural violations.

Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.

· IPR2025-01027

Geotab petitions the PTAB to invalidate Fractus’s 11,349,200 antenna‑design patent, asserting obviousness over Dou and Jing and lack of written description for 4G‑standard claims.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.

· IPR2025-01026

Geotab seeks to invalidate all 20 claims of Fractus’s ’677 antenna patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art antennas and lack of written‑description support for 4G LTE features. The petition urges the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01250

Apple prevailed in IPR2020‑00175, with the PTAB finding all six challenged claims of the ’299 patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer and Park references.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

Apple prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci’s wearable health‑monitoring patent, finding 12 of the 23 claims unpatentable while the remaining claims survived.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent, arguing that all asserted claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson and Mannheimer.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

· IPR2025-01250

Samsung (on behalf of Apple) petitions the PTAB to invalidate Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent covering wearable optical health monitors. The petition asserts obviousness over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer references and requests that the trial be instituted.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition relies on a combination of five prior‑art references to argue obviousness of all 23 claims. The case is pending institution.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01025

The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01246

BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,803,836. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the three inter partes review proceedings and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.OMNI MEDSCI, INC.

Apple (as petitioner) prevailed in an IPR against Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent, with the PTAB finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer. The decision hinges on pulse‑rate and signal‑to‑noise teachings in the prior art.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01121

Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments settled their IPR disputes with Champion Power Equipment, resulting in the termination of the proceedings against them while Generac remains as a petitioner.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01246

BOE Technology Group and Paneltouch Technologies have settled IPR2025-01246. The parties filed a joint motion to seal the settlement agreement as business confidential information.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01057

Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 12,290,418 intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 25 claims covering the isolation mouthpiece.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01245

BOE Technology and Paneltouch Technologies settled their dispute over three patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the related IPRs. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01057

Dr. Brian P. Black submits a declaration supporting Ascentcare’s IPR petition, asserting that the ’969 dental isolation mouthpiece patent is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references. He targets claims 1‑4 and 6‑19, concluding they are unpatentable.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01322

Union Electric filed Director Review requests for IPR2025-01322, -01323, and -01324. The PTAB Director instructed MES, Inc. to respond within five business days, limited to 15 pages and no new evidence.

Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-01239

Apple Inc. filed a motion to dismiss its IPR petition against Telcom Ventures' U.S. Patent 12,028,793, arguing that the Board has not yet ruled on institution and that proceeding would waste resources. The motion seeks pre‑institution dismissal while other related IPRs remain active in parallel litigation.

Apple Inc. v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-01236

Apple filed a motion to dismiss its IPR against Telcom Ventures’ U.S. Patent 11,770,756, arguing that the case is pre‑institution and that dismissal will conserve resources. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01121

Harbor Freight and Champion have filed a joint request asking the PTAB to treat their Settlement Agreement as business‑confidential information, keeping it separate from the IPR file for patent 11,143,120. The request cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and seeks limited disclosure only to federal agencies or parties with good cause.