US PTAB IP Litigation

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.

Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a response to Dynamic Mesh Networks’ request for director review, stating it takes no position and defers to the Director’s discretion.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.

Court decision.

Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-01401

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 11 claims of Telcom Ventures' mobile‑payment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Dynamic Mesh Networks' ’537 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art mesh networking references. The petition outlines three grounds covering the full claim set and requests the Board to institute the review.

Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-01220

Marvell has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Credo’s ’111 patent covering high‑speed serial‑link equalization. The challenger relies on a combination of prior‑art references that teach known equalization, preset selection, and training techniques.

patent denied · Aug 8, 2025

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01082

TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of Marlin’s 6,888,181 FinFET triple‑gate patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.

patent instituted · Aug 8, 2025

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR because the patent owner had filed a statutory disclaimer covering all challenged claims and the entire patent term.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Aug 7, 2025

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01303 involving Cisco Systems and Dynamic Mesh Networks after reviewing the merits. This allows the proceeding to move forward to a full trial.

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

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

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

patent denied · Aug 7, 2025

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 12,016,580 covering intravascular embolism treatment devices after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently promising.

Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.

The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Sonos’s audio patent.

Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.

Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of its IPR petition against Sonos’s audio‑player patent, alleging procedural violations of the APA, improper delegation of authority, and fee‑setting misalignment.

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

The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Inari Medical’s 12,016,580 hemostasis valve patent, finding a reasonable likelihood that Imperative Care will prevail on at least one of the nine challenged claims.

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

The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success sufficient. All nine claims are now under trial.

Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.

The PTAB notified Google and Sonos that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-01213. Sonos may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.

Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.

Sonos filed a response defending the PTAB Director’s denial to institute Google’s IPR over patent 10,541,883, arguing the Director’s discretion is unreviewable and that procedural requirements were met.

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

Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inari Medical’s 12,016,580 clot‑removal patent. The petition relies on Garrison and several other catheter‑related references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.

Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.

Google LLC has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sonos’s U.S. Patent No. 10,541,883. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Cheshire, Meenan, and Spurgat under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01265

TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of Marlin Semiconductor’s FinFET fabrication patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Xu, Lin, and Brask under 35 U.S.C. §103.