US PTAB IP Litigation

SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Apr 14, 2025

SIG Sauer and True Velocity jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal law, citing its sensitive business content and prior precedent.

SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.

SIG Sauer and True Velocity have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,561,543.

patent terminated or settled · Apr 14, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00819

ClearCorrect challenges Align Technology’s dental aligner patent in an IPR, and Align seeks to deny the Patent Owner’s Director Review request. The response argues the new RPI theory and trial‑date evidence are improper, and that the Board’s institution decision was correct.

SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.

patent all challenged claims upheld · Apr 14, 2025

SIG SAUER and True Velocity settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,561,543, leading the Board to dismiss the proceeding before trial.

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

· IPR2025-00821

The PTAB affirmed Align Technology’s patent on a dual‑shell dental sheet composition, finding none of the challenged claims unpatentable after a detailed obviousness analysis involving Hinz, Durasoft data sheets, and Sun.

patent denied · Apr 14, 2025

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

· IPR2025-00820

Align Technology requests a Director Review to vacate the institution of IPR2025‑00820, arguing that the district court trial date now precedes the final written decision deadline, that the petition merely repeats prior‑art already considered, and that the petitioner failed to disclose all real parties in interest.

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.

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-00806

Google LLC has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s ’517 patent covering a GUI‑based DNS policy system. The petition argues the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references and that the examiner never considered these references. Institutional factors are presented to favor instituting the review.

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

· IPR2025-00819

ClearCorrect has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Align Technology’s 11,154,384 patent covering multilayer dental aligners. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Tadros, Kalili, Porter, Wen, and Texin 990R.

SIG Sauer Inc. v.True Velocity, Inc.

SIG Sauer has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of True Velocity’s polymeric ammunition cartridge patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition outlines seven statutory grounds under §§ 102 and 103 and requests institution of the review.

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

· IPR2025-00821

ClearCorrect seeks to invalidate Align Technology's 2023 patent on multilayer dental aligners, arguing that all claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Kalili, Porter, Texin 990R, Wen, and Tadros. The petition requests the PTAB to institute review and cancel the challenged claims.

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

· IPR2025-00818

ClearCorrect seeks PTAB review of Align Technology's 10,973,613 patent covering multilayer dental aligners, arguing all 22 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition cites Tadros, Kalili, Porter, Wen, and Texin 990R as teaching the same polymer layers and configurations.

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

· IPR2025-00820

ClearCorrect seeks an IPR to invalidate Align Technology’s 11,648,090 patent covering multilayer dental aligners. The petition argues that the claims are obvious over prior‑art polymer aligner references. No institution decision has been made yet.

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

· IPR2025-00821

ClearCorrect Operating successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review on all claims, arguing that Align Technology's dental aligner patents are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103. The Board accepted the petitioner's arguments regarding material substitutions (Tritan for polycarbonate) and combining prior art references into a multilayer device.

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

· IPR2025-00820

The PTAB granted institution of IPR for ClearCorrect against Align Technology regarding a dental aligner patent (11,648,090). The Board found sufficient evidence that the challenged claims would be obvious over prior art references.

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

· IPR2025-00818

The PTAB decided to institute the IPR proceedings against Align Technology's patent (10973613) after Petitioner ClearCorrect demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that combining prior art references like Tadros, Kalili, and Texin 990R was motivated by POSITA with reasonable expectation of success.

patent instituted · Apr 11, 2025

Google LLC v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC

· IPR2025-00806

Google LLC successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Sandpiper CDN, LLC regarding patent 8645517. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references. This moves the dispute into a trial phase at the PTAB.

patent · Apr 12, 2025

Avidbots Corporation et al. v.Brain Corporation

· IPR2025-01604

Avidbots has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Brain Corp.’s U.S. Patent 10,728,436 covering robot‑based object detection. The petition alleges obviousness over prior publications on edge detection (Rosenstein, Canny, Xu) and depth‑map techniques (Nourbakhsh, Tsutsumi). The Board must decide whether to institute the review.

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

patent instituted · Apr 11, 2025

Apple seeks a PTAB Director review to overturn the institution of an IPR filed by Samsung against a Wi‑Fi patent, arguing settled expectations, lack of diverse subject matter, and Samsung’s inconsistent indefiniteness positions.

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

patent denied · Apr 11, 2025

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Samsung’s 10,313,077 B2 Wi‑Fi patent after Apple’s petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on claim 1. All 14 claims are now subject to review on obviousness grounds.

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

patent denied · Apr 11, 2025

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines sought to invalidate a load‑balancing patent, but the PTAB denied institution, finding the obviousness arguments insufficiently specific. The petition relied on Chow, Reiffin, and Kurowski references, which the Board said did not adequately teach the claimed features.

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP

The USPTO denied Apple’s request for Director Review of institution decisions in six related IPRs, keeping the original institution rulings intact.

patent · Apr 11, 2025

Wella Operations US LLC v.Olaplex, Inc.

· PGR2026-00010

Wella Operations seeks a post‑grant review of Olaplex’s ’225 patent, arguing the claims are too broad, lack enablement, written description, and are indefinite.

patent · Apr 11, 2025

Apple Inc. v.HBCU Messaging US LP