US PTAB IP Litigation

Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00794

NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems jointly moved to terminate IPR2020-01608 concerning patent 8,082,289 B2 after the Board had instituted the review. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding without a final written decision.

MIM Software Inc. et al. v.EXINI Diagnostics AB, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00827

MIM Software and EXINI Diagnostics settled their inter partes review, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.

Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.

· IPR2025-00775

Google responded to Withrow Networks’ request for Director Review of the institution of claims 1‑9 of U.S. Patent 10,771,849. The Board concluded the request raised new, unsupported arguments and did not meet the limited statutory criteria for review. The Director Review request was denied, leaving the institution standing.

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

· IPR2025-00825

LithiumHub Technologies and Shenzhen FBTech settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,412,994, seeking Board approval to dismiss the proceeding.

Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.

· IPR2025-00775

Withrow Networks has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-00775. Google, the petitioner, may submit a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence is allowed.

Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00795

The USPTO denied Intel’s request for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial and the denial of institution in IPR2025‑00795, leaving the original decision intact.

patent instituted

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

· IPR2025-00728

The PTAB granted institution of an inter partes review (IPR2025-01562) filed by Imperative Care against Inari Medical’s patent 11,844,921 after finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.

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

· IPR2025-00720

OnePlus’s request to overturn a patent challenge on LTE/5G technology was denied. Pantech successfully defended the Director’s discretionary denial, emphasizing lack of examiner error and settled industry expectations.

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

· IPR2025-00722

The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s petition to invalidate Ningde Amperex’s 2020 electrolyte patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board held that the prior art did not adequately disclose all claim elements, especially the propyl propionate ratio.

Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG

· IPR2025-00721

The PTAB denied Innoscience's petition to institute IPR against Infineon's 9,899,481 B2 patent covering compound semiconductor power components, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 17 challenged claims.

patent instituted

Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC

· IPR2025-00772

The PTAB granted Dentsply Sirona’s petition to institute an inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s dental densitometry patent (U.S. 6,944,262). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 based on multiple prior‑art references. Institutional discretion factors favored proceeding despite parallel district cases.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00718

PacifiCorp challenges the patent owner’s request for Director Review of IPR2025‑00718, arguing procedural errors, misstatements in prosecution, and that the PTAB is the proper forum. The petition seeks denial of the Director’s discretionary denial under §315(d).

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00717

The Board terminated the IPR against MidAmerican Energy Company after the parties settled, but the case continues against PacifiCorp.

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

· IPR2025-00774

Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year settled‑expectations standard to block their IPR petition against Audio Pod IP’s patent. They argue the standard violates the AIA, the APA, and due‑process rights. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-00806

Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging a PTAB discretionary denial that allowed review of its expired CDN patent. The petition argues the decision conflicts with settled‑expectations precedent and improperly weighed Fintiv factors. Google seeks reversal and denial of institution.

Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC

· IPR2025-00715

Databricks and ByteWeavr settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,949,752, filing joint motions that led the PTAB to terminate the IPRs. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00717

MidAmerican Energy Company and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint motion to treat their settlement agreement as confidential and to terminate the IPR concerning patent 10,926,218. The request relies on statutory provisions for business‑confidential treatment of settlement agreements.

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

· IPR2025-00769

The PTAB Director emailed the parties confirming receipt of petitioner’s Director Review requests for six IPRs, including IPR2025-00769. Patent Owner may file a 15‑page response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.

Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr, LLC

· IPR2025-00716

Databricks and ByteWeavr jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑00716 after reaching a settlement that also dismissed the related district‑court lawsuit. The Board is asked to grant the termination because the case is at an early stage and unopposed.

Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC

· IPR2025-00715

Databricks and ByteWeavr have settled their IPR dispute and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-00826

The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for a review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Sandpiper’s CDN patent (9,021,112). The institution of the patent remains in effect.

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

· IPR2025-00825

Shenzhen FBTech and LiTime settled their IPR challenge to LithiumHub's patent 9,412,994, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial and keep the settlement confidential.

Databricks, Inc. v.ByteWeavr LLC

· IPR2025-00714

Databricks and ByteWeavr have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,839,733 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites the early stage of the proceeding and lack of opposition as grounds for termination.