US PTAB IP Litigation

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00853

Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute over patent 7,784,058. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.

Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC

· IPR2025-00771

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s 6,381,301 patent after finding a reasonable likelihood that Kavo Dental Technologies (as represented by Dentsply Sirona) would prevail on at least one claim.

patent all challenged claims upheld

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

· IPR2025-00818

The USPTO Director denied ClearCorrect's request to review the institution decisions in several IPRs involving Align Technology's orthodontic patents, leaving the institution rulings in place.

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

· IPR2025-00818

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

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

· IPR2025-00769

Amazon sought Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent. The patent owner argues the denial was proper under settled‑expectations and discretionary authority. The response urges the Director to reject Amazon’s review request.

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

· IPR2025-00769

Amazon and affiliates petition the PTAB to overturn a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year settled‑expectations rule to block their IPR on Patent 9,954,922. They argue the rule violates the AIA, the APA, and due‑process rights.

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

· IPR2025-00817

ClearCorrect Operating, LLC filed an authorized response opposing Align Technology’s Director Review Request, asserting that the new RPI arguments are untimely and that the Director’s discretionary denial was proper.

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

· IPR2025-00728

The PTAB has instituted inter partes review on all 15 claims of Inari Medical’s embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently persuasive.

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

· IPR2025-00728

The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s ’291 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. All 16 challenged claims are now under review.

Belden Inc. et al. v.CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina

· IPR2025-00833

Belden has requested Director Review of an IPR concerning CommScope’s patent 9,266,697. The patent owner may file a limited response within five business days.

Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00849

Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,519,814. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board dismissed the petitions and kept the settlement confidential.

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

· IPR2025-00728

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim. All nine claims are now under review.

United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.

· IPR2025-00812

Auto Telematics Ltd. has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its vehicle‑telematics patent, arguing the Board misinterpreted claim language and ignored discretionary denial grounds.

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00758

Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the IPR file and restrict third‑party access.

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

· IPR2025-00768

The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the PTAB's decision denying institution of multiple IPRs against Audio Pod IP's patents. The order confirms the institution denial remains in effect.

Apple Inc. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC

· IPR2025-00811

Apple and Sony moved to withdraw their IPR petition against SiOnyx’s 9,064,764 patent. The patent owner did not oppose, and the Board is expected to terminate the proceeding at the pre‑institution stage.

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00835

The ITC investigation into switchable‑connectivity phones and tablets was terminated after Ericsson and Apple reached a settlement, prompting the Commission to dismiss the case without further review.

Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00807

The PTAB granted the parties’ joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential after the IPR was terminated by mutual agreement.

Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00807

Henri Daussi, LLC and ECNA, LLC settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,398,791 B1 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review before the Board instituted the trial. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition.

Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.

· IPR2025-00799

The Director denied Intas Pharmaceuticals' request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00799, leaving Atossa Therapeutics' Patent 11,261,151 in place.

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

· IPR2025-00757

Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑device patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Acting Director properly exercised discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

Docker Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00840

Docker Inc. and Intellectual Ventures II LLC settled their inter partes review disputes before trial, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPRs. The settlement covered three patents and the agreements were treated as confidential business information.

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00758

Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,908,508, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review that had been instituted earlier in the year.