US PTAB IP Litigation

Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.

The PTAB notified the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-01171 over patent 7,051,306. The petitioner has five business days to submit a limited response; no new evidence is allowed.

Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.

Infineon contests MOSAID’s late Director Review request, asserting that claim‑construction issues were disclosed before the IPR petition and can be reconciled with district‑court constructions. The petitioner offers stipulations to avoid any inconsistent outcomes.

Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.

· PGR2025-00057

Conjupro Biotherapeutics has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate Ascletis’s U.S. 12,234,236 patent covering small‑molecule GLP‑1R agonists. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and challenges the examiner’s narrow allowance. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.

Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.

Infineon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 51 claims of MOSAID’s ’306 power‑management patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering power islands and dynamic voltage/frequency scaling. The petition follows a prior IPR that was instituted and later terminated.

LiveIntent, Inc. et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.

· IPR2025-01160

LiveIntent petitions the PTAB to invalidate AlmondNet's U.S. Patent 8,494,904 covering user profiling for targeted ads, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Robinson, Jaye, Coleman). The petition seeks institution despite anticipated Board discretion issues.

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01151

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 27 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent 11,328,286 covering a dynamic, limited‑use payment card system. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and argues that printed‑matter limitations lack patentable weight. The case is pending institution.

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01148

Apple has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging all 23 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent No. 10,810,579 covering mobile‑payment tokenization. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple NFC‑payment references such as Collinge, Lin, and Phillips. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.

Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01105

UPPAbaby has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Baby Jogger’s stroller‑seat attachment patent (U.S. 8,955,869) on the basis of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

Monahan Products, LLC (dba UPPAbaby) et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01106

UPPAbaby has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate seven claims of Baby Jogger’s 9,403,550 stroller‑seat‑attachment patent, arguing obviousness over Liao, Stopp, Chen and Sweeney references.

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

· IPR2025-00994

Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,621,360, asserting that the claims covering microstructured photodetectors are obvious over prior art such as Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1,3,5‑6,8‑9.

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01152

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 72 claims of CardWare’s ’634 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payment tokenization. The petition argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

patent instituted · Jun 20, 2025

Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Lemko Corporation

· IPR2025-01142

Microsoft and AT&T have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Lemko’s 8,310,990 patent covering distributed mobile architecture handover, asserting that the claims are anticipated by the earlier Flore publication.

Conjupro Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Ascletis Pharma China Co. Ltd.

· PGR2025-00057

The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00057, allowing the challenger to proceed with trial against patent 12234236.

patent denied · Jun 20, 2025

Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.

patent denied · Jun 20, 2025

The Director denied institution of an IPR against MOSAID's patent, ruling that Infineon failed to adequately explain conflicting claim construction positions taken in district court litigation.

Apple Inc. v.CardWare Inc.

· IPR2025-01148

The USPTO Director denied institution for multiple IPR proceedings, including one involving Apple Inc. and CardWare Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patents.

patent · Jun 19, 2025

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

· PGR2025-00058

Ascentcare Dental Products has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 31 claims of Solmetex’s dental mouthpiece patent, alleging obviousness, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The petition leans on three earlier patents and expert testimony to argue the claims are unpatentable.

patent denied · Jun 19, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01124

The USPTO Director denied institution for the IPR proceedings involving Aerin Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., halting further trial.

Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.

· PGR2025-00056

Geotab has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Fractus’s ’149 patent covering smartphone antenna designs, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01161

Google has filed a Petition for Director Review challenging the USPTO Director’s denial of institution for patent 7,804,891, alleging statutory and procedural violations.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 17, 2025

Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01161

Google seeks Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR on a communication‑quality patent. The patent owner argues the Director’s authority is exclusive and the petition’s APA claims are meritless. The Board is urged to deny the Director Review request.

GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01099

Generac, Harbor Freight, and MWE settled their IPR against Champion Power's dual‑fuel selector switch patent. They filed a joint request to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.

patent denied · Jun 17, 2025

GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01099

Petitioners jointly request that the settlement agreement for the Dual Fuel Selector Switch patent be kept confidential and separate from the PTAB file.

Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01161

The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the decision to deny institution of IPR2025-01161 involving patent 7,804,891. The denial upholds the earlier institution refusal.