US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-00959

Carbyne petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tritech’s RE50016 reissued patent covering emergency call text messaging. The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references—Brooks, SARLOC, Salafia, and Marr—asserting that the claimed system was well‑known. It seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.

Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00984

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2‑4 and 11 of U.S. Patent 10,218,995, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art video‑coding references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the challenged claims.

Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00983

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑2 of the ’303 video‑coding patent, asserting obviousness over Demircin and Kimoto references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.

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

· IPR2025-00986

Mercedes‑Benz seeks cancellation of all 18 claims of U.S. Patent 9,493,149, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary factors favor institution.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-00969

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 26 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s CDN caching patent. The petition relies on obviousness over Kenner and on combinations with Vetter, Rekimoto, and Boyles, and also challenges claim 28 under §112. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute review.

patent instituted · Sep 5, 2025

Google LLC v.Cellular South Inc

· IPR2025-00876

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cellular South’s 10,218,954 patent covering video‑to‑data methods, asserting obviousness over Kritt, Fontana, and Lau references and noting no discretionary denial issues.

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

· IPR2025-00989

Imperative Care successfully challenged the patentability of Inari Medical's hemostasis valve claims before the PTAB, leading to institution on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board focused heavily on claim construction, ultimately defining 'filament' as a flexible length of material necessary for the device function. This decision sets important precedent regarding functional limitations in medical device patents.

patent denied · Sep 5, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00987

The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by American Airlines and Southwest Airlines against Intellectual Ventures I LLC, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Lawson, Tsutsumitake, and Choquier in the dynamic routing network space.

patent instituted · Sep 5, 2025

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-00969

Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR against Sandpiper CDN's patent 8478903, asserting that the core technology was obvious over prior art like Kenner.

patent denied · Sep 5, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00959

The Director denied the institution of IPR2025-00959, vacating a prior decision because Carbyne failed to explain inconsistencies in its claim construction arguments between district court and PTAB.

patent instituted · Sep 5, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00959

Carbyne successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Tritech Software Systems regarding emergency SMS/geolocation technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) over various combinations of prior art references, including Brooks and SARLOC.

Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.

patent denied · Sep 1, 2025

AXA Power defends the USPTO Director's discretionary denial of Dabico's IPR petition, arguing the Director acted within broad authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and applied a holistic assessment. The Patent Owner contends the petitioner misapplies the review standard and seeks denial of the request for Director Review.

Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.

The PTAB denied Dabico Airport’s request for Director Review of a denied institution decision, leaving AXA Power’s patent in force.

Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.

Dabico Airport Solutions has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPR against AXA POWER APS’s ‘169 patent. The petitioner argues the Director improperly applied a new “settled expectations” discretionary denial standard without notice. The request seeks vacatur of the decision or additional briefing.

Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.EXELIXIS, INC.

· IPR2025-00427

Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Exelixis’s U.S. 12,128,039 patent, arguing obviousness over Brown combined with Kubo and Robinson references.

Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.

Dabico Airport Solutions has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of AXA Power’s preconditioned‑air‑unit patent, asserting that the claimed features are obvious over multiple HVAC prior‑arts. The petition cites Kreymer, Taras, Takahashi, Carrier and Lechmotoren as teaching the same elements.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development

· IPR2025-00429

Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1 and 17 of WSOU’s U.S. 9,450,884 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests institution of the review.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01499

BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings without a trial. The settlement agreement is confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).

patent · Aug 31, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01499

BOE and Samsung filed a joint request to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.

patent · Aug 31, 2025

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01498

BOE and Samsung filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01479

BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,574,991 B2 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01477

BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled IPR2025-01477 before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement confidential. No claim validity was decided.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01476

BOE Technology and Samsung Display jointly settled eight IPR challenges to Patent 10,541,279, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before trial.