US PTAB IP Litigation

Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Regeneron defends the PTAB’s discretionary denial of Fresenius’s request to review the denial of institution for an IPR targeting its aflibercept biosimilar patent. The response argues that Fresenius ignored the controlling Fintiv factors, misapplied settled‑expectations, and raised meritless constitutional claims.

Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Fresenius Kabi seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Regeneron’s biosimilar patent. The petition argues the Board’s “settled expectations” rule and discretionary denial are unlawful and harm drug‑price competition.

Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Court decision.

GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

· PGR2025-00059

GE Healthcare petitions to invalidate Johns Hopkins' U.S. Patent 12,115,233 covering FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceuticals, asserting obviousness, lack of written description, and lack of enablement.

Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC

· IPR2025-01284

Dell Technologies and Dell Inc. have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 27 claims of Cloud Byte’s ’249 patent covering packet‑forwarding nodes. The petition relies on the Shimizu patent application and the BGP‑4 standard (RFC‑4271) as prior art to argue obviousness.

Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC

· IPR2025-01287

Dell Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of Cloud Byte’s cooling‑structure patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of inter‑ partes review and cancellation of the claims.

Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC

· IPR2025-01286

Dell Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate nine claims of Cloud Byte’s ‘632 patent covering server‑cooling abnormality detection. The petition relies on the combination of two prior‑art references, Hira and Shiga, to argue obviousness.

Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim petitions the PTAB to invalidate Regeneron’s anti‑VEGF eye‑drug patent, asserting that the Dix ’226 reference anticipates all challenged claims and that the patent owner has not shown any criticality for the claimed formulation parameters.

Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01177

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SoundClear’s 11,244,675 patent covering voice‑controlled content generation. The petition asserts obviousness over Raitio/Fahlman and Ocampo/Fahlman combinations for claims 1‑7.

Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC

· IPR2025-01288

Dell Technologies and Dell Inc. have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cloud Byte's U.S. Patent 9,651,320 covering server‑cooling fan control. The petition relies on a combination of prior art (Sato, Nakamura, Jin) to argue obviousness under §103.

Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.Cloud Byte LLC

· IPR2025-01285

Dell Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Cloud Byte’s ’177 patent covering network flow tracing. The petition relies on obviousness over Rijhsinghani and combinations with RFC‑5474, Lean, and a networking textbook.

Niantic, Inc. v.ImagineAR, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01273

Niantic has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of ImagineAR’s U.S. Patent No. 11,666,827, which covers location‑based virtual gameplay. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over the Kolo and Zyda references under 35 U.S.C. §103 and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.

Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim, GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-01269

Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Regeneron’s aflibercept eye‑drug patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness based on earlier clinical studies and publications.

patent instituted · Jul 14, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.W&Wsens Devices Inc.

· IPR2025-00997

Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate 20 claims of W&Wsens Devices’ ’084 patent covering a microstructure‑enhanced photodetector integrated with a processor. The petition relies on Harada, Hasegawa, NXP and Yahaya references to argue obviousness. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.

GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

· PGR2025-00059

GE Healthcare Ltd.'s Post-Grant Review petition against The Johns Hopkins University was instituted by the PTAB, focusing on obviousness and statutory defects. The Board acknowledged strong arguments regarding combining prior art (US-633/Meletta with Jansen) and potential lack of enablement for radiopharmaceutical claims.

patent denied · Jul 14, 2025

Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim, GmbH et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2025-01269

The PTAB denied institution of the IPR in a dispute between Fresenius Kabi SwissBiosim and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the required likelihood standard.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

The PTAB held that all 20 claims of Netlist’s ’160 memory‑package patent are obvious over the combined teachings of Kim, Rajan, and Wyman, rendering them unpatentable. Samsung and its Micron co‑petitioners prevailed.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

In IPR2023‑00454, the PTAB held that all 15 claims of Netlist’s U.S. Patent 11,093,417 are obvious over the combined teachings of the Perego memory‑module disclosure and the JEDEC DDR2 standard, rendering the claims unpatentable.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

The USPTO denied Samsung and Micron’s request for Director Review of two IPR decisions, leaving the Board’s final written decisions in place.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jul 11, 2025

The PTAB held that all 35 claims of Netlist’s ’339 memory‑module patent are obvious over the Ellsberry and Halbert references. Samsung and its co‑petitioners prevailed, resulting in the patent’s claims being invalidated.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’833 patent succeeded, finding all asserted claims unpatentable for obviousness over Best, Bonella, and Mills. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and rejected the patent owner’s arguments.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of PTAB decisions upholding Netlist’s memory patents, citing the Director’s recusal and delegated authority.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.

Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on Netlist’s memory‑module patent was denied, leaving the Board’s final written decision intact.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.