US PTAB IP Litigation

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

The USPTO Director denied Union Electric’s request for review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,596,517. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 6, 2025

MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v.Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.

· IPR2025-01107

MSN Pharmaceuticals and its affiliate filed a supplemental certificate of service to confirm that the IPR petition and related documents were delivered to Breckenridge Pharmaceutical. The filing complies with USPTO service rules.

Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC

· IPR2025-01102

Google and Pointwise Ventures settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

patent instituted · Jun 6, 2025

Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.

Geotab’s IPR against Fractus’s LTE‑Band‑12 antenna patent was instituted, with the Board affirming that Baliarda‑543 anticipates the challenged claims and that the priority analysis is correct.

Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.

Fractus seeks Director Review to overturn the institution of an IPR that relied on a novel written‑description analysis of its 4G antenna patent. The Owner argues the Board misapplied the law, making the priority claim valid and the prior art inapplicable.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

Union Electric seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on a mercury‑control patent. BirchTech’s response argues the Director’s decision is final, the litigation history does not merit reversal, and procedural requests are untimely. The Board is asked to deny the review.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

Union Electric seeks Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial and force an IPR on MES’s mercury‑control patent. The petition argues the patent is invalid in view of extensive prior art and prior Board findings. Settlement activity by the patent owner raises concerns of avoiding a merits decision.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01118

The USPTO Director denied Union Electric’s request for review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,343,114. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes unchanged.

Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.

The USPTO Director denied Geotab’s request for review of the institution decisions in IPR2025‑01026 (and related IPR2025‑01027), leaving the institution of the patents intact.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 6, 2025

Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC

· IPR2025-01102

Google and Pointwise Ventures filed a joint request to terminate their IPR and keep the settlement agreement confidential under Board rules.

Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC

· IPR2025-01102

Google and Pointwise Ventures have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,471,812 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding at this early stage.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

An email from the PTAB Director informs the parties that Director Review requests have been received for IPR2025-01117 and IPR2025-01118, outlining the response requirements and prohibiting new evidence.

patent instituted · Jun 6, 2025

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01118

The Board notified the parties that Director Review requests for two IPRs have been received and set a five‑day deadline for the patent owner to file a limited response, prohibiting new evidence.

Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.

· IPR2025-01027

Geotab and Geotab USA have filed an authorized response supporting the PTAB's institution of an IPR against Fractus's patent covering LTE Band 12 antennas. The petition asserts that Baliarda-543 anticipates all claims and that the priority document lacks written description support. The Board is urged to deny the patent owner's request for discretionary denial.

Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.

· IPR2025-01027

Fractus seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR that it says misapplied written‑description law and improperly stripped the ‘200 patent’s priority claim. The dispute centers on the meaning of “4G communication standard” and whether the parent application supports the claimed antenna language.

Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.

· IPR2025-01027

The PTAB denied Geotab's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs, leaving the institution decisions in place.

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

· PGR2025-00053

Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 12,195,773 covering soluble human PH20 hyaluronidase variants. The petition alleges lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness over prior art. The case is pending before the PTAB.

Baby Generation, Inc. d/b/a Mockingbird et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01095

Petitioner Baby Generation seeks to invalidate claims 1‑17 and 19‑22 of Baby Jogger’s ’231 stroller patent, alleging lack of support for the “substantially parallel” limitation and obviousness over three prior‑art combinations.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-01118

Union Electric has filed a petition to invalidate BirchTech’s 10,343,114 mercury‑removal patent, asserting lack of written description and obviousness over multiple prior art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑30.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v.MES, Inc.

Union Electric has filed an IPR petition challenging 29 claims of BirchTech’s mercury‑control patent, asserting lack of written description and anticipation/obviousness over multiple prior art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.

Geotab Inc. et al. v.Fractus, S.A.

Geotab has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Fractus’s 11,031,677 antenna patent, arguing obviousness over Dou, Ciais‑Quadband and Nakano references and lack of written description for 4G standards.

United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-01091

United Microelectronics Corp. (UMC) has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC's 8,198,686 patent, asserting obviousness over Aoyama, Akasaka, and Hsu823 prior art.

United Microelectronics Corporation et al. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-01092

United Microelectronics Corporation has filed an IPR petition challenging fourteen claims of the ’180 patent covering high‑k gate dielectric MOSFET structures. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over several pre‑2005 publications, invoking 35 U.S.C. §103.