US PTAB IP Litigation

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01181

Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over the Eagle and Mgrdechian references. The petition argues the prior art was never considered during prosecution and requests institution of the IPR.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01181

Google successfully challenged Proxicom Wireless’s proximity‑based transaction patent, resulting in a Final Written Decision that all nine challenged claims are unpatentable. The Board found the claims anticipated or obvious over prior art references Perttila and Swartz.

Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01108

Element TV and Nokia reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑01108 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Perfect Corporation v.Zugara, Inc.

· IPR2025-01144

Perfect Corp. and Zugara, Inc. settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,482,517. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01181

Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ patent covering proximity‑based data exchange, resulting in a Final Written Decision that all fifteen challenged claims are unpatentable.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

· IPR2025-01189

Samsung and Hannibal IP jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-01189, seeking to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.

Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-01098

Nintendo withdrew its IPR against Resonant Systems’ U.S. Patent 8,860,337 covering gaming controller haptic feedback. The Board granted the motion, terminating the proceeding before any institution or claim analysis.

Intel Corp. et al. v.General Video, LLC

· IPR2025-01038

Lattice Semiconductor and Technicolor have settled their dispute, filing a joint notice to vacate the scheduled case management conference and dismiss the case.

patent denied

CentralSquare Technologies, LLC v.Carbyne, Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01179

The USPTO denied Carbyne’s request for an extension to file a Director Review, finding no good cause and citing Revvo precedent. CentralSquare’s claim‑construction positions were already known before the deadline.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01193

Microsoft and Dialect jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking trade‑secret protections under the CFR. The request seeks to limit public disclosure and to be notified of any access requests.

Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.

· IPR2025-01178

Starbucks and Pi‑Design have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,695,486. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01175

Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Solmetex’s 2023 intraoral mesh patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over five earlier dental mouthpiece references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· IPR2025-01175

Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging ten claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 12‑21 and argues that the patent owner broadened claim scope after product launch.

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

· IPR2025-01026

Geotab’s IPR against Fractus’s LTE‑Band‑12 antenna patent was instituted, with the Board affirming that Baliarda‑543 anticipates the challenged claims and that the priority analysis is correct.

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

The PTAB instituted inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care has shown a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim. The dispute centers on whether the claimed “filament” must be flexible, with the Board presently favoring the patent owner’s interpretation.

Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01161

Google seeks Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR on a communication‑quality patent. The patent owner argues the Director’s authority is exclusive and the petition’s APA claims are meritless. The Board is urged to deny the Director Review request.

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

· IPR2025-01026

Fractus seeks Director Review to overturn the institution of an IPR that relied on a novel written‑description analysis of its 4G antenna patent. The Owner argues the Board misapplied the law, making the priority claim valid and the prior art inapplicable.

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

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care likely to prevail on at least one claim. All 15 claims are now under review.

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

Imperative Care’s petition to invalidate Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent was granted. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness grounds and instituted review of all nine claims.

GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01099

Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE settled their IPR against Champion Power's dual‑fuel selector switch patent. They filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.

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

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent (U.S. Patent 11,697,012) on all nine claims after finding the challenger, Imperative Care, showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The dispute centers on claim construction of “filament” and alleged anticipation/obviousness over prior‑art references.