US PTAB IP Litigation

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.

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.

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.

Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00986

Mercedes-Benz and patent owner The Phelan Group filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory confidentiality provisions.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

patent denied · Sep 5, 2025

Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute inter partes review of its expired content‑delivery patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and misread the prior art. The request seeks reversal of the institution.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

The PTAB denied Google and Sandpiper CDN's requests for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs, including the 8,478,903 patent. The denial leaves the original institution rulings in place.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against Sandpiper CDN’s expired ’903 patent covering CDN alias routing. The petition argues that expiration and a district‑court stay do not create settled expectations for discretionary denial and that the prior art Kenner teaches the claimed elements.

Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.

The patent owner has filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00959, and the Board has instructed the petitioner to submit a limited response within five business days.

Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.

Tritech Software Systems seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of Carbyne’s IPR, arguing the petition is deficient due to inconsistent claim constructions across forums.

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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Sep 5, 2025

The USPTO granted institution of IPR2025-01562 filed by Imperative Care against Inari Medical's patent 11865291. The Board found the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, allowing the case to move forward.

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

patent terminated or settled · Sep 5, 2025

The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable. The Board’s claim construction of “filament” as a flexible element undermined the anticipation argument and found the obviousness combinations persuasive.

Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00986

Mercedes-Benz and patent‑assertion firm Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025‑00986 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes, ending the proceeding before it was instituted.

patent terminated or settled · Sep 5, 2025

Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00986

Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.

Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.

patent terminated or settled · Sep 5, 2025

Carbyne, Inc. sought a rehearing of the Director Review in IPR2025-00959, but the USPTO denied the request. The decision leaves the original patent enforcement order in place.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

Kaifi LLC and Amazon reached a settlement in principle and jointly moved to stay all court deadlines for 45 days to finalize the agreement and file dismissal papers.

Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.

Carbyne’s request to rehear the PTAB Director’s decision de‑instituting its IPR is challenged by the patent owner, who argues the request merely repeats already‑rejected arguments and violates rehearing standards. The response cites the Revvo and Tesla precedents to support the denial of the rehearing.

Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc

Google petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPRs, arguing the USPTO’s “settled expectations” rule violates the APA, AIA, and due‑process rights.

Carbyne, Inc. et al. v.Tritech Software Systems et al.

Carbyne, Inc. filed an authorized response opposing Tritech Software Systems’ Director Review request to overturn the institution of an IPR. The petitioner asserts the request is procedurally barred and that the patent owner’s reliance on its own prosecution statements is proper.

Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc

Google’s request for director review of a denied PTAB institution is challenged by Cellular South, which argues the request merely recycles previously rejected arguments about the “settled expectations” doctrine. The patent owner urges the Board to uphold the discretionary denial.

Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc

patent denied · Sep 5, 2025

The PTAB notified the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-00875 and IPR2025-00876, setting a 15‑page limit and a five‑business‑day deadline for the Patent Owner’s response, with no new evidence allowed.

Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc

The USPTO Director denied Google LLC's request for a director review of the institution decisions in two IPRs (patents 9,940,972 and 10,218,954) filed against Cellular South, Inc.

American Airlines, Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC

· IPR2025-00987

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 37 claims of Intellectual Ventures' ’722 patent, asserting obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references covering real‑time data updates and routing networks.

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