US PTAB IP Litigation

Microsoft Corporation v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01351

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of Dialect’s 2008 speech‑interface patent, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.

Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-01219

Marvell files an IPR petition challenging Credo’s ’252 active‑cable patent, asserting that its equalization claims were already known in prior‑art active cable designs.

Volex plc v.CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.

· IPR2025-01386

Volex has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Credo’s active Ethernet cable patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

patent instituted · Jul 8, 2025

Red Hat, Inc. v.Competitive Access Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-01380

Red Hat has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,350,649, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over prior‑art bandwidth‑aggregation references such as Kotzin and Phatak. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v.Credo Technology Group Ltd.

· IPR2025-01219

The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01219, allowing Marvell Semiconductor to challenge Credo Technology Group's patent 11012252.

patent · Jul 7, 2025

Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-01217

Aesthetic Management Partners has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of HydraFacial’s ’477 skin‑treatment patent. The petition relies on obviousness grounds under §103, citing multiple prior‑art references covering microdermabrasion and fluid delivery systems.

patent · Jul 7, 2025

Apple Inc. v.CText IP LLC

· IPR2025-01113

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of CText IP’s ’304 patent covering chat‑window visual cues. The petition relies on three prior‑art references—Chang, Oh, and Stochosky—to argue obviousness under §103 and argues against discretionary denial.

patent · Jul 7, 2025

Apple Inc. v.CText IP LLC

· IPR2025-01112

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 18 claims of CText IP's messaging patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Chang, Oh, and Stochosky. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.

patent instituted · Jul 7, 2025

Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC et al. v.HydraFacial LLC

· IPR2025-01217

The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01217, allowing the trial to proceed after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. This decision is part of a larger set of institutional rulings.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

Ascentcare Dental Products has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 7‑18 of Solmetex’s 11,589,970 patent, alleging obviousness over several prior‑art dental mouthpiece references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition challenging Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, asserting that all claims 12‑21 are obvious over prior art. The petition relies on Park, Baughan, Johnson and Hirsch references and seeks cancellation of the claims.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

Ascentcare Dental Products petitions the PTAB to invalidate Solmetex’s 11,589,969 intraoral mesh patent. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over five prior‑art references covering all independent and dependent claims.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

patent denied · Jul 6, 2025

Ascentcare Dental Products has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of Solmetex’s intraoral device patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists ten distinct grounds, each tying claim groups to references such as Black, Park, Baughan, Johnson, Hirsch, and Zheng.

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v.Solmetex, LLC

Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.'s IPR petition against Solmetex, LLC's dental device patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board ruled that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding obviousness over prior art references like Black and Park/Baughan/Johnson.

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.

· PGR2025-00050

Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,077,791 covering modified PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts that the claims are overly broad and lack both written description and enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Merck seeks institution of the proceeding and cancellation of all claims.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-00952

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Sandpiper's 8,719,886 patent covering video‑stream delivery and targeted advertising. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Acharya, Carle, Schein, Fransdonk) and cites favorable institution factors.

Google LLC v.Bootler, LLC

· IPR2025-00968

Google has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate all 17 claims of Bootler’s food‑delivery data‑aggregation patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.