US PTAB IP Litigation

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

· IPR2025-01434

Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition challenging Guardant Health’s ’306 patent covering cfDNA sequencing methods. The challenger asserts that all claim elements were disclosed in earlier publications such as Bielas and Vogelstein, rendering the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of review to invalidate the patent.

Mundra Solar PV Limited v.First Solar, Inc.

· IPR2025-01411

Mundra Solar PV Limited has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of First Solar’s 9,666,732 patent, alleging obviousness over Yablonovitch, Kwark, and Batra. The petition seeks institution of the review.

Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia

· IPR2025-01422

Caption Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate UBC’s 10,751,029 ultrasound‑image‑analysis patent, asserting anticipation by Krishnan and obviousness over Chen, Aase and Wu. All 30 claims are challenged under §§102 and 103.

CrowdStrike, Inc. v.Skysong Innovations, LLC

· IPR2025-01397

CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Skysong Innovations’ U.S. Patent 10,313,385. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over six prior‑art references, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition is pending before the PTAB.

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01336

Meta Platforms has filed a petition for inter partes review of Dialect’s ’825 patent covering speech‑recognition methods, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01335

Meta Platforms has filed a petition for inter partes review of Dialect’s U.S. Patent 8,015,006, targeting claims 5 and 6. The challenger alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art speech‑recognition references. The petition seeks institution of the review.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

· IPR2025-01435

Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition challenging Guardant Health’s ’916 patent covering cfDNA‑based microsatellite instability detection. The petition asserts obviousness over a combination of Schmitt, Forshew, Porreca, and Sacko references.

patent instituted · Aug 15, 2025

Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.

· IPR2025-01433

Excelliance Mos Corporation has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Force MOS Technology’s 7,629,634 trench MOSFET patent, asserting that all nine claims are obvious over the Hshieh and Uno prior‑art references.

Caption Health, Inc. et al. v.University of British Columbia

· IPR2025-01422

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01422, allowing Caption Health to proceed with challenging University of British Columbia's patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.

patent denied · Aug 15, 2025

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01336

The USPTO denied institution for IPR2025-01336 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner failed to meet the standard of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC

Court decision.

Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC

Ford Motor Company filed a response urging the PTAB Director to deny AutoConnect’s request for review of a discretionary denial, emphasizing settled expectations from its long‑term Flextronics relationship and AutoConnect’s lapses in fee payments and commercialization. The filing argues that these factors preclude any expectation that the ’153 patent would be enforced against Ford.

Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC

AutoConnect’s counsel urges the PTAB to deny Ford’s IPR petition, citing Ford’s contradictory indefiniteness arguments and settled‑expectations grounds. The brief references Board guidance that disallows “having it both ways.”

Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC

Ford Motor Co. filed a Request for Director Review challenging a PTAB decision that granted institution based on a supplier‑based settled‑expectations theory. AutoConnect Holdings contends the Board relied on unsupported facts about Flextronics’ supply of infotainment systems and seeks reversal.

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.

· IPR2025-01396

BOE Technology Group petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 23 claims of U.S. Patent 7,636,146, asserting that the LCD‑panel features are obvious in view of Kitawada and multiple secondary references.

Google LLC v.Telcom Ventures LLC

· IPR2025-01421

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of Telcom Ventures’ ’432 patent covering NFC‑based mobile payments. The challenger relies on four prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103.

Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC

Ford Motor Company has filed a petition to institute an IPR against AutoConnect’s U.S. Patent 9,290,153 covering vehicle‑device discovery and personalization. The petition asserts that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art such as Moinzadeh, Clement, Rasin, Bosch, and Ghabra.

Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC

patent instituted · Aug 14, 2025

Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate AutoConnect’s vehicle infotainment patent (US 9,290,153) on the ground of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition proposes claim constructions for “daemon” and “access” and requests the Board to institute the review.

Ford Motor Company v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC

Institution of IPR2025-01383 was granted, allowing the trial to proceed after the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

patent all challenged claims upheld · Aug 13, 2025

GUANGZHOU EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-01369

Nine Stars Group filed a preliminary response opposing an IPR petition by Guangzhou EKO. The owner contends the cited Chinese patents are not prior art and, even if they were, do not make the ’796 claims obvious. The Board is urged to deny institution.

Netskope, Inc. v.K.Mizra LLC

· IPR2025-01115

Cisco, Forescout and HPE challenged K.Mizra’s 2012 network‑quarantine patent. The PTAB found the challengers failed to prove obviousness over prior art and upheld all claims.

Netskope, Inc. v.K.Mizra LLC

· IPR2025-01115

An exhibit submitted by Netskope shows K.Mizra's extensive litigation history, listing dozens of active and terminated district‑court cases. The document is used to underscore a pattern of settlements in the IPR challenge of patent 8234705.

Google LLC et al. v.ART RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, LLC

· IPR2025-01406

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1 and 5‑11 of ART Research’s ’442 patent covering video‑annotation interfaces, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.