US PTAB IP Litigation

patent terminated or settled · Jun 16, 2025

Snap’s IPR petition challenging Nokia’s video‑compression patent was instituted, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 23 claims based on MPEG‑1 and H.263 prior art.

Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

Snap and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,175,148 B2. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, which the Board granted, also ordering the settlement documents to be treated as confidential.

Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

Snap has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 23 claims of Nokia’s video‑encoding patent, alleging obviousness over MPEG‑1 and H.263 standards. The petition details how each claim limitation is disclosed in the prior‑art references.

Almendra Pte. Ltd. et al. v.Fienile AgronecÃ³cios LTDA

· PGR2025-00055

Almendra Pte. Ltd. has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,089,543 B2, asserting indefiniteness, lack of enablement, abstract‑idea ineligibility, and obviousness over Rosen and Richardville. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑7.

Amazon.com, Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC

· IPR2025-01167

Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 40 claims of VB Assets’ ’385 patent covering voice‑enabled shopping. The petition relies on eight §103 obviousness grounds using prior art such as Li, Chen, Barnes, Kennewick and Lee.

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01153

ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s U.S. Patent 10,536,714 covering motion‑vector prediction methods. The petition asserts obviousness over earlier video‑coding publications (Rusert, Karczewicz, Lin) and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑30. The case is pending institution.

Snap, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

patent denied · Jun 16, 2025

Snap, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nokia Technologies' U.S. Patent 8,175,148 covering video‑encoding quantization techniques. The petition asserts obviousness over MPEG‑1 and H.263 standards and requests cancellation of all 23 claims.

Amazon.com, Services LLC v.VB Assets, LLC

· IPR2025-01167

The USPTO Director denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition filed by Amazon.com against VB Assets' patent 11087385.

patent instituted · Jun 16, 2025

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01153

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01153, allowing ASUSTeK to challenge Nokia's patent 10536714 after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jun 13, 2025

Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jun 13, 2025

The PTAB held that Google’s challenge to Valtrus’s 7,748,005 patent succeeded, finding all twenty claims unpatentable for lack of written‑description support and obviousness over the McCarthy application and Gien micro‑kernel reference.

Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.

patent all challenged claims upheld · Jun 13, 2025

The PTAB held that Google proved all 21 claims of Valtrus’s ’454 patent are obvious over Colby, Eilert, and Jindal, rendering the entire patent unpatentable.

Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 13, 2025

Google’s IPR against Valtrus’s 6,728,704 B2 patent was decided with all 23 challenged claims upheld. The Board found the prior‑art Bushee not anticipatory and rejected obviousness arguments over Voorhees, Tso, and Koppel.

Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01109

Element TV and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,532,808 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination before the proceeding is instituted.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 13, 2025

Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01108

Element TV and Nokia reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025‑01108 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jun 13, 2025

Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.

The PTAB held that Google’s obviousness challenge succeeded, finding all 19 claims of Valtrus’s ’764 patent unpatentable over the Li and Edlund prior‑art references. The decision also denied Google’s motion to exclude exhibits and granted motions to seal.

Element TV Company, LP et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2025-01109

Element TV and Nokia have reached a settlement and jointly request the PTAB to treat the agreement as confidential and terminate the IPR. The motion relies on statutory provisions protecting settlement confidentiality.

Apple Inc. v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01158

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of a video‑compression patent owned by Advanced Coding Technologies, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Phek, YuChuan, He and Martins. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.

Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 15 claims of Valtrus’s ’967 patent covering redundant power supplies. The petition relies on anticipation by Zak and obviousness over Susong, Chang, and Edelen, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Solventum Corporation v.Wound Healing Technologies Corp.

· IPR2025-01042

Solventum Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 13 claims of Wound Healing Technologies' wound‑dressing patent. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Argenta, Hu, Biggie and Lockwood.

patent denied · Jun 13, 2025

ROBE lighting s.r.o. v.Guangzhou Haoyang Electronic Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01016

ROBE Lighting petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 13 claims of Guangzhou Haoyang’s ‘373 patent covering a self‑testing stage light fixture, asserting anticipation and obviousness over the Jurik luminaire patents.

Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovations Limited et al.