US PTAB IP Litigation

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

· IPR2025-00768

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” bar on IPRs. They argue the standard exceeds statutory authority, conflicts with precedent, and violates the APA and due‑process rights.

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

Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent was met with a detailed response asserting the denial was proper and that no APA or due‑process violations occurred.

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

The Director denied Amazon's request to review the PTAB's denial to institute multiple IPRs against Audio Pod IP, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00711

Milestone Entertainment filed a sur‑reply defending claims 7 and 9 of its gaming patent against Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition. The patent owner argues the prior art (Kelly and Walker) does not disclose the required threshold metrics and that the petitioner’s claim constructions are improper.

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00711

Milestone Entertainment filed a response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, contending that the three cited references (Kelly and Walker) do not disclose the threshold‑value features of Claims 7 and 9, and therefore the petition fails to show unpatentability.

Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc. v.Vervain, LLC

· IPR2025-00616

The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' post‑grant review petition against Vervain's NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the challenger failed to meet the more‑likely‑than‑not standard for unpatentability.

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

· IPR2025-00762

Pantech defends its 2020 dual‑connectivity patent against OnePlus’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited references do not teach the claimed in‑sequence timer and that no obviousness motivation exists.

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

Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year ‘settled expectations’ rule to its IPR petition against Audio Pod’s patent. The petition argues the rule violates the AIA, the APA, and due‑process rights.

patent instituted

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00710

Activision Blizzard’s IPR challenge to Milestone Entertainment’s virtual‑currency patent focuses on Claim 8’s variable multiplier. Milestone’s response argues the cited prior art does not disclose a time‑varying multiplier, rendering the petition’s grounds insufficient.

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00708

Milestone Entertainment filed a preliminary response opposing Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,529,336. The patent owner contends the cited prior art does not disclose key claim limitations and that one reference is not prior art. The Board denied institution of the petition.

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00710

Milestone Entertainment filed a sur‑reply in an IPR challenging Activision Blizzard’s claim that claim 8 of U.S. Patent 10,825,294 is unpatentable. The patent owner asserts the petitioner’s evidence fails to show a variable multiplier for virtual currency over time and that new arguments are improper.

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00709

Milestone Entertainment argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails to show that the prior art discloses key virtual‑currency features of U.S. Patent 10,650,635. The response stresses missing disclosures of a multiplier and image‑based conversion, and a lack of motivation to combine references, seeking denial of the petition.

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

· IPR2025-00758

Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00758 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,908,508.

Amphenol Corporation v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-00699

Amphenol and Credo have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).

Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.

· IPR2025-00696

Interstellar Inc. submits a response urging the PTAB to deny Kahoot!’s request for Director Review of the discretionary denial in IPR2025‑00696. The owner contends the Director’s discretion is broad, there is no six‑year bright‑line rule for settled expectations, and the petitioner’s arguments are repetitive and unsupported.

Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.

· IPR2025-00696

Kahoot! has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Interstellar’s ’825 patent, arguing the six‑year settled‑expectations rule was misapplied.

Kahoot! AS et al. v.interstellar inc.

· IPR2025-00696

The USPTO denied Kahoot!’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Interstellar’s patent. The denial leaves the original institution denial intact.

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

Amazon has requested Director Review of six IPRs targeting its audio‑pod patent. The PTAB will decide whether a limited review is permitted, with the patent owner allowed a brief response but no new evidence.

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00754

USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00754 after settling their dispute, including dismissal of related district‑court litigation.

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00753

USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑00753 after settling their dispute and dismissing related district‑court litigation.

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00688

PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed a Director Review petition seeking to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on a mercury‑control patent. The patent owner argues the MDL already provides a more efficient forum and that the Board’s action would cause duplicative litigation.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00687

PacifiCorp and MidAmerican challenge MES’s mercury‑control patent, arguing the Director erred in referring the petition and that the patent’s prosecution contained material misstatements. They seek denial of the patent owner’s Director Review request, emphasizing PTAB efficiency over the MDL.

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

· IPR2025-00728

The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation by Schaffer and obviousness over combinations with Hartley, Eller and Garrison. The decision hinges on the Board’s construction that the claimed filament must be flexible, which the prior art does not disclose.