US PTAB IP Litigation

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00900

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 5G multi‑antenna patent, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00914

Intel and AMD have filed a petition to invalidate 12,021,679, alleging that its claims are obvious over earlier MultiMATLAB publications and IBM documentation. The petition requests that the PTAB institute an IPR and cancel claims 1‑19.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00913

Intel and AMD have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems' 11,570,034 patent on the basis of obviousness over prior‑art papers describing MultiMATLAB and related IBM documentation.

Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.AutoConnect Holdings LLC

· IPR2025-00891

Toyota Motor Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of AutoConnect’s vehicle‑control patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Ikeda and Hendry publications.

Intel Corporation et al. v.USTA Technology, LLC

· IPR2025-00838

Intel and Lenovo have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 53 and 95 of USTA Technology’s RE47,720 patent, arguing obviousness based on a combination of prior‑art references covering OFDM/MIMO techniques.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00805

Harbor Freight has filed an IPR petition challenging Champion Power’s 2019 dual‑fuel engine patent, asserting that all 24 claims are either obvious or anticipated by a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.

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

· PGR2025-00046

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent on hyaluronidase polypeptides under grounds of enablement and obviousness. The PTAB granted institution, finding the claims cover a vast genus that requires undue experimentation to fully enable.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00914

Intel Corporation and Advanced Micro Devices challenged the patentability of Advanced Cluster Systems' cluster computing patents before the PTAB. The Board issued an institution decision, finding sufficient evidence that the claims are obvious over prior art references like Menon and Trefethen. This moves the dispute toward a full trial on obviousness grounds.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00913

Intel Corporation et al. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc., challenging 30 claims of patent 11570034 based on obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner could prevail in its challenge to cluster computing technology.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00907

Apple Inc. successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its IPR against Apex Beam Technologies LLC regarding claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11139944. The Board found that the combination of 3GPP standards documents renders the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to institution of trial.

patent denied · Apr 29, 2025

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00805

The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the multi-fuel generator patent (10393034). The Board adopted Petitioner's claim construction regarding 'gaseous fuel,' which was critical to establishing obviousness and anticipation grounds.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00805

The PTAB Director denied institution of IPRs against Champion Power Equipment because Generac Power Systems presented inconsistent claim construction arguments in related litigation versus before the Board. This decision reinforces precedents requiring petitioners to maintain a single, consistent interpretation of patent claims.

patent terminated or settled · Apr 28, 2025

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

patent terminated or settled · Apr 28, 2025

Apple and Apex Beam Technologies jointly moved to terminate sixteen IPRs after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreements as confidential. No claim merits were decided.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

Apple and Apex Beam have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,374,721 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate 20 claims of Apex Beam’s 11,374,721 patent covering grant‑free uplink transmission, citing Lee, Freda and Ly as obviousness prior art.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00896

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 2021 LTE beam‑switching patent. The petition relies on the Chen patent combined with 3GPP standards and the Dahlman textbook to argue obviousness of all twelve claims under §103.

Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. v.Corning Incorporated

· IPR2025-00937

Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Corning’s 8,640,498 glass‑substrate patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over seven prior‑art references.

Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00917

Canadian Solar has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Trina Solar’s 2019 solar‑cell patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Jin, Feldmann and Chang.

patent instituted · Apr 28, 2025

Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.

· IPR2025-00918

Canadian Solar seeks to invalidate 11 claims of Trina Solar's 9,722,104 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art such as Jin, Feldmann, Chang, Seo, and Watabe. The petition requests institution and notes discretionary denial is inapplicable.

Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC