US PTAB IP Litigation

Apple and Vampire Labs have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,358,103, and they have jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 27, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01179

CentralSquare (CST) opposes Carbyne’s request for a good‑cause extension to seek Director Review in IPR2025‑01179, asserting the deadline was missed intentionally and no claim‑construction conflict exists. The email urges the Director to deny the contingent request.

Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC

Apple and Vampire Labs reached a settlement, prompting a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,358,103. The Board granted the termination without addressing the merits.

Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC

patent denied · Jun 27, 2025

Apple and Vampire Labs filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business‑confidential and to terminate the IPR.

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.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00052

Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,264,345, which claims thousands of modified PH20 hyaluronidase polypeptides. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and obviousness. The Board must decide whether to institute the proceeding.

Apple Inc. v.Vampire Labs, LLC

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of Vampire Labs' battery‑charging patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art (Stephens, Horowitz, and Toya) and that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The petition seeks institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the claims.

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01147

Apple Inc. has filed a petition for inter partes review of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 10,628,820, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over a range of prior‑art references. The petition highlights lack of patentable weight for printed‑matter limitations and argues a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings.

patent instituted · Jun 27, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01179

CentralSquare Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Carbyne’s emergency video‑streaming patent, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over two earlier patents. The petition seeks institution of an IPR under §§102 and 103.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00052

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Halozyme, Inc.'s claims covering a genus of modified PH20 polypeptides. The Board found that the broad scope of the claimed variants lacked adequate written description and enablement support in the original patent disclosure. This decision significantly challenges the breadth of the patented technology in hyaluronidase drug development.

patent denied · Jun 27, 2025

Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01127

The USPTO Office Director denied institution of inter partes review (IPR2025-01127) for the challenged patent, meaning no trial will proceed on the claims.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 26, 2025

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.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 26, 2025

Perfect Corporation v.Zugara, Inc.

· IPR2025-01144

Perfect Corp. and Zugara, Inc. entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on Zugara’s virtual‑try‑on patent, citing statutory authority and efficiency concerns.

patent · Jun 26, 2025

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.

· IPR2025-01194

Sarepta has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 3‑6 of Genzyme’s ’542 AAV formulation patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how Wu, Konz, Croyle, and Potter collectively disclose all claim limitations.

patent denied · Jun 26, 2025

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.

· IPR2025-01194

The USPTO Board denied the institution of IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01194) involving Sarepta Therapeutics and Genzyme Corporation, meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent.

patent · Jun 25, 2025

American Fuji Seal, Inc. et al. v.Brook & Whittle Ltd.

· IPR2025-01176

American Fuji Seal has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Brook + Whittle’s 2024 recyclable shrink label patent, asserting obviousness over Schurr and over Kitano combined with Lee.

patent · Jun 25, 2025

Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01126

Aerin Medical has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑30 of Neurent’s ’973 patent, arguing obviousness over Townley and Wolf‑003/Wolf‑290 disclosures. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.

patent · Jun 25, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00993

Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of W&Wsens’ ’871 photodetector patent, asserting obviousness over earlier imaging patents by Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu.

patent denied · Jun 25, 2025

Aerin Medical Inc. v.Neurent Medical Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01126

The USPTO Director denied institution for several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, including IPR2025-01126. This procedural denial means no trial will be held on the challenged patents.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 11,589,970 dental mouthpiece patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Park, Baughan, Johnson, Black and Hirsch.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

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

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.

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01150

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging CardWare’s ’538 patent covering mobile payment tokenization. The petition asserts that claims 19‑30 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC