US PTAB IP Litigation

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc et al. v.The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania et al.

· IPR2024-00580

Sarepta Therapeutics challenged patent 11680274, owned by The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania and Regenxbio Inc., on grounds of obviousness (103). The PTAB ruled in favor of institution, finding that the challenger's arguments were strong enough to warrant further review.

patent null · Feb 21, 2024

Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC

· IPR2024-00566

Arm Limited petitioned the PTAB to challenge ICPillar LLC's patent 9367657 on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art references, including Banerjee and Rompaey/CoWare I, teach the claimed hardware/software co-design functionality. The Board has instituted the matter due to compelling merits in the challenger's arguments.

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00563

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories challenges the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 11,596,600 regarding brimonidine eye drops using obviousness over prior art. The Petition argues that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have been motivated to use low concentrations for treating ocular redness. The Board is urged to deny institution based on Hatch-Waxman goals and alleged Examiner error.

patent denied · Feb 21, 2024

i4F Licensing NV v.VILOX AB

· IPR2024-00602

The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by i4F Licensing NV against VILOX AB's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient support for anticipation or obviousness over prior art references Miller and Roy. The Board specifically found insufficient evidence regarding a curved horizontal locking surface disclosed in Miller.

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc et al. v.The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania et al.

· IPR2024-00580

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. successfully challenged several claims of The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania in an IPR proceeding regarding gene therapy/AAV technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) using combinations of prior art references.

Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC

· IPR2024-00566

Arm Limited successfully secured institution for its IPR challenge against ICPillar LLC's patent 9367657, challenging claims based on obviousness over Banerjee and Rompaey/CoWare. The Board granted institution after the Petitioner mitigated concerns regarding parallel litigation in District Court.

patent Final Written Decision · Feb 21, 2024

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.

· IPR2024-00563

The PTAB instituted the IPR petition challenging key claims of a patent related to vasoconstriction agents for eye redness. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, despite arguments from the Patent Owner regarding prior art limitations and adverse events.

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc et al. v.The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania et al.

· IPR2024-00580

The Board issued a Final Written Decision upholding the validity of claim 8 in this gene therapy IPR. The decision found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient motivation or reasonable expectation of success to combine prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

patent null · Feb 20, 2024

Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.

· IPR2024-00595

Ceva Santé Animale S.A. filed an IPR challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,806,124, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on multiple combinations of prior art references (Gershman, Pierre, Yavnai, Tao) related to poultry sexing and image analysis.

patent null · Feb 20, 2024

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.Identitii Limited

· IPR2024-00593

JPMorgan Chase Bank challenges Identitii Limited's patent (10984413) on grounds of obviousness and lack of written description/enablement. The Petitioner argues the claims are predictable combinations of prior art references, specifically Kennedy and Kurani-816.

patent null · Feb 20, 2024

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.Identitii Limited

· IPR2024-00590

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. filed a petition challenging Identitii Limited's patent (10984413), arguing that the claims are obvious under Section 103. The petitioner contends that combining Smith and Seger renders nearly all claimed features predictable for POSITA in financial technology.

patent instituted · Feb 20, 2024

Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.

· IPR2024-00595

The PTAB decided to institute the IPR challenge against Targan, Inc.'s patent (10806124), finding that the Petitioner presented new and non-cumulative prior art combinations. The case involves poultry production technology, with Ceva Sante Animal S.A. as the petitioner.

patent denied · Feb 20, 2024

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.Identitii Limited

· IPR2024-00593

The PTAB denied JPMorgan Chase Bank's IPR against Identitii Limited, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Kennedy and Kurani-816.

patent denied · Feb 20, 2024

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.Identitii Limited

· IPR2024-00590

The PTAB denied JPMorgan Chase's request to institute IPR against Identitii Limited's patent, finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.

patent final · Feb 20, 2024

Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.

· IPR2024-00595

The PTAB found that claims 1-15 of the patent are unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board's construction of 'unrestrained chick' was crucial, defining it as a chick free to open its wings on the moving platform.

Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC

Comcast challenges the PTAB’s finding that its TV channel‑selection patent is unpatentable, filing a Director Review Request alleging the Board ignored prior Office findings on the same technology. The Patent Owner seeks reversal of the decision under the Director’s 2025 memorandum.

Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC

The Board denied Comcast’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in the IPR concerning Entropic Communications’ patent 11,399,206. The denial applies to three related IPRs filed by the same parties.

Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC

· IPR2024-00435

The PTAB denied Comcast's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00435 concerning patent 11,381,866. The order also applies to two related IPRs.

Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC

· IPR2024-00441

Comcast’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that claims 1‑18 of Entropic’s 8,792,008 patent are unpatentable was denied. The Board found the petition provided a sufficient reasoned basis and the patent owner waived unraised arguments.

Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC

· IPR2024-00441

Entropic Communications seeks Director review of an IPR where the PTAB declared all 18 claims of its cable‑broadband patent unpatentable. The owner alleges procedural abuse, invented arguments, and inconsistent rulings with a related IPR. It requests reversal and termination of the proceeding.

Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC

· IPR2024-00435

Comcast rejects Entropic Communications' request to file new exhibits in IPR2024-00435, arguing the request is untimely after final decisions.

Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC

Comcast argues that Entropic’s request for Director Review of the IPR’s Final Written Decision should be denied because the Patent Owner failed to provide relevant evidence and raised no valid procedural or legal grounds.

Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC

Comcast opposes Entropic Communications' request to submit new exhibits after PTAB final decisions, arguing the request is untimely and unsupported. The petition seeks denial of the exhibit submission.