US PTAB IP Litigation

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.GenghisComm Holdings, LLC

· IPR2025-00781

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of GenghisComm’s OFDM patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Galda, Dowling, Kaiser and Bury. The petition also argues the patent’s priority chain is broken and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00795

Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 26‑29 and 35‑39 of U.S. Patent 10,333,768, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art papers (Menon, Trefethen) combined with IBM documentation and the MPI standard. The petition also challenges discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).

Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

· IPR2025-00794

Intel has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 30 claims of Advanced Cluster Systems’ ’768 patent covering cluster‑computing architectures, arguing that the invention was disclosed years earlier in Cornell’s MultiMATLAB papers and IBM documentation.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-00682

TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 35 claims of the ’686 semiconductor device patent owned by Advanced Integrated Circuit Process. The petition alleges examiner error and that multiple prior‑art references render the claims anticipated or obvious.

GE Healthcare Ltd. et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.

· IPR2025-00808

GE Healthcare petitions the PTAB to invalidate three claims of a Johns Hopkins FAP‑targeting radiopharmaceutical patent, asserting obviousness over US‑633, US‑121, Meletta and Jansen references.

Walmart Inc. et al. v.RavenWhite Security, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00810

Walmart has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of RavenWhite’s ’823 patent, asserting obviousness over two prior‑art references (Hinton and Varghese) and a lack of written‑description support.

Walmart Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00809

Walmart has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Security Technology’s ’402 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition presents two grounds, each covering claims 1‑19, and argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.

Henri Daussi, LLC v.ECNA, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00807

Henri Daussi, LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 14 claims of U.S. Patent 9,398,791 covering an oblong diamond cut, citing multiple prior‑art references for lack of novelty and obviousness.

patent instituted · Mar 28, 2025

Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00778

Liberty Energy petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services' 11,959,533 patent covering multi‑plunger hydraulic fracturing pumps. The petition asserts that all 25 claims are obvious under §103, relying on a series of prior‑art combinations and argues that institution is proper under the Fintiv and Becton factors.

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

· PGR2025-00039

Merck Sharp & Dohme successfully challenged Halozyme's patent claims in a PGR proceeding, focusing on enablement and obviousness. The Board adopted a functional claim construction requiring 'modified PH20 polypeptide' to exhibit hyaluronidase activity.

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00755

USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,070,530, leading to a joint motion that terminated the IPR proceeding before it was instituted.

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00752

USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have resolved their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,044,689 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The district‑court case involving the same patent was also dismissed.

Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.

Alpinestars and Dainese have executed a settlement that ends all pending cross‑border patent disputes over airbag technology for motorcyclists. The agreement includes dismissal of lawsuits, withdrawal of oppositions, and a mutual non‑challenge pledge.

Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.

This exhibit is a certified English translation of the settlement agreement between Dainese and Alpinestars dated Oct. 5, 2020, filed in IPR2025‑00750. It confirms the authenticity of the settlement for the Board’s record.

patent · Mar 27, 2025

Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.

patent denied · Mar 27, 2025

Alpinestars has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Dainese’s U.S. Patent 12,012,065, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is not warranted.

patent · Mar 27, 2025

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00754

USAA Federal Savings Bank petitions the PTAB to invalidate PACid Technologies' biometric authentication patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition relies on Immega‑Day‑Tomko, Mardikar‑318/Chhabra, and Duffy teachings and argues that institution is warranted under the Fintiv framework.

Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.

patent denied · Mar 27, 2025

Alpinestars S.p.A et al.'s IPR challenge against Dainese's inflatable safety device patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, despite arguments regarding obviousness over prior art combinations.

Alpinestars S.p.A et al. v.Dainese S.p.A.