US PTAB IP Litigation

Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00825

Petitioners and the patent owner jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreements as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). The request is presented as timely and compliant with the applicable statutes and regulations.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00851

Microsoft and cloud‑migration startup VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00783

OnePlus has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a decision that denied institution of an IPR against Pantech’s 4G/5G random‑access patent, arguing the Board misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and ignored examiner error. The request highlights the large, diverse patent portfolio in parallel district‑court litigation as a factor against discretionary denial.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

· IPR2025-00777

Amazon sought Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent. Audio Pod’s counsel argues the denial was proper under the settled‑expectations doctrine and that no APA or due‑process violations exist. The Board has yet to rule on the review request.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.QPRIVACY USA LLC

· IPR2025-00836

The USPTO Director denied Cisco’s petition for rehearing of the decision that refused to institute IPR2025‑00836 against QPRIVACY USA LLC’s patent 11,816,249. The denial leaves the patent unchallenged.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

· IPR2025-00777

Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule that barred its IPR petition on patent 9,319,720. The petition argues the rule violates the APA, the Constitution, and the AIA. The Board is asked to reverse the discretionary denial.

Valneva Austria GMBH v.Takeda Vaccines, Inc.

· IPR2025-00776

Valneva Austria and Takeda Vaccines jointly moved to terminate an IPR covering 67 vaccine‑related claims. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition without a merits decision.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00832

The USPTO Director denied Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing’s request for review of the institution decisions in five related IPRs, keeping the institution denials against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC in place.

Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.

· IPR2025-00775

Withrow Networks seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its adaptive streaming patent. The patent owner contends the Board misinterpreted claim language and improperly relied on prior‑art references that do not teach the required combination of fluidity, video quality, audio quality, and optimized decoding.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld

GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

· IPR2025-00808

GE Healthcare and Johns Hopkins University jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00808 concerning patent 11,938,201. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding without prejudice and allowing future filing.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00829

In IPR2025-00829, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding at least one claim of U.S. Patent 7,923,764 unpatentable. The challenger TSMC and patent owner Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC presented arguments under §§102/103, resulting in a mixed outcome.

patent all challenged claims upheld

Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00825

The parties to IPR2025‑00825 settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,412,994 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, and the motion cites statutory authority for termination.

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00821

The PTAB affirmed Align Technology’s patent on a dual‑shell dental sheet composition, finding none of the challenged claims unpatentable after a detailed obviousness analysis involving Hinz, Durasoft data sheets, and Sun.

patent instituted

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00728

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 patent covering hemostasis valves after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.

patent all challenged claims upheld

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00820

The PTAB affirmed all claims of Align Technology’s ‘630 patent after finding ClearCorrect’s obviousness arguments unpersuasive. No claim was deemed unpatentable.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

· IPR2025-00774

Amazon has requested Director Review for several IPRs involving Audio Pod’s patent 8738740. The Patent Owner must respond within five business days with a limited brief and no new evidence.

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00820

ClearCorrect files an authorized response opposing Align Technology’s Director Review request, arguing the new RPI theory and trial‑date evidence are improper and that the Porter prior art issue was already rejected.

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00820

Align Technology requests a Director Review to vacate the institution of IPR2025‑00820, arguing that the district court trial date now precedes the final written decision deadline, that the petition merely repeats prior‑art already considered, and that the petitioner failed to disclose all real parties in interest.

Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al. v.LithiumHub Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00822

LithiumHub Technologies and two Shenzhen firms settled IPR2025‑00822 concerning a solid‑state lithium battery patent, seeking dismissal of the proceeding.

patent all challenged claims upheld

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00819

The USPTO denied ClearCorrect’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in five IPRs involving Align Technology’s patents, leaving the institution outcomes intact.

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00819

The PTAB affirmed Align Technology’s patent on a multilayer dental sheet composition, finding none of the ClearCorrect‑challenged claims unpatentable.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

· IPR2025-00774

Audio Pod defends the PTAB Acting Director’s use of a settled‑expectations standard to deny institution of Amazon’s IPR. The patent owner argues Amazon’s APA and due‑process challenges lack merit, urging denial of the Director Review request.

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al. v.Align Technology, Inc.

· IPR2025-00818

ClearCorrect seeks Director review to overturn an IPR institution on Align Technology’s Invisalign patent, arguing the Fintiv analysis now favors denial and that the petitioner failed to name all real parties in interest.