US PTAB IP Litigation

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

patent denied · Jul 8, 2025

A 2024 study of PTAB final written decisions from 2021 shows that patents invalidated in IPRs often have extensive prior‑art citations and that most unpatentability grounds depend on new prior art introduced during the proceeding, with expert testimony frequently influencing outcomes.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

patent denied · Jul 8, 2025

Google LLC’s petition to invalidate Dialect’s 7,398,209 patent on speech‑interface technology was denied. The Board concluded the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of its obviousness arguments.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

patent terminated or settled · Jul 8, 2025

The USPTO denied Microsoft’s request to institute an Inter Partes Review of Dialect’s patents, citing the patents’ long‑standing ownership and a parallel district‑court case. No trial will proceed.

Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.

· IPR2025-01386

Volex PLC and Credo Technology Group settled their IPR disputes covering three patents, including U.S. Patent 11,012,252, and jointly moved to terminate the proceedings. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Jul 8, 2025

Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.

· IPR2025-01387

Volex plc and Credo Technology Group have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and emphasizes that no merits decision has been rendered.

patent terminated or settled · Jul 8, 2025

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

Microsoft and Dialect, LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025-01351 before institution, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet made an institution decision, and the parties seek confidentiality for the agreement.

Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.

· IPR2025-01385

Volex has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Credo’s ’233 active‑cable patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art patents Lugthart‑706, Gorecki‑617 and the IEEE 802.3‑2015 Ethernet standard.

Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.

· IPR2025-01387

Volex has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Credo’s 11,032,111 patent, asserting that prior‑art active‑cable and adaptive‑pre‑equalization references make the claims obvious under §103.

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of Dialect’s 2008 speech‑interface patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.

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

· IPR2025-01219

Marvell files an IPR petition challenging Credo’s ’252 active‑cable patent, asserting that its equalization claims were already known in prior‑art active cable designs.

Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.

· IPR2025-01386

Volex has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Credo’s active Ethernet cable patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

patent instituted · Jul 8, 2025

Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-01380

Red Hat has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,350,649, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references such as Kotzin and Phatak. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.

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

· IPR2025-01219

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01219, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 11012252.

patent · Jul 7, 2025

Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-01217

Aesthetic Management Partners has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of HydraFacial’s ’477 skin‑treatment patent. The petition relies on obviousness grounds under §103, citing multiple prior‑art references covering microdermabrasion and fluid delivery systems.

patent · Jul 7, 2025

Apple Inc. v.CText IP LLC

· IPR2025-01113

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of CText IP’s ’304 patent covering chat‑window visual cues. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Chang, Oh, and Stochosky—to argue obviousness under §103 and argues against discretionary denial.

patent instituted · Jul 7, 2025

Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-01217

The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01217, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger set of institutional rulings.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 7‑18 of Solmetex’s 11,589,970 patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art dental mouthpiece references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, asserting that all claims 12‑21 are obvious over prior art. The petition relies on Park, Baughan, Johnson and Hirsch references and seeks cancellation of the claims.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 11,589,969 intraoral mesh patent. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over five prior‑art references covering all independent and dependent claims.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

patent denied · Jul 6, 2025

Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists ten distinct grounds, each tying claim groups to references such as Black, Park, Baughan, Johnson, Hirsch, and Zheng.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC