US PTAB IP Litigation

Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH

· IPR2025-01116

Albany International has filed an IPR petition challenging Voith’s 15‑claim paper‑machine clothing patent, asserting that all claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition details measurements showing the claimed loop‑density and seam‑loop ratio were known long before the patent’s priority date.

Evenflo Company, Inc. et al. v.Baby Jogger, LLC et al.

· IPR2025-01100

Evenflo and affiliated companies have filed an IPR petition challenging Baby Jogger’s stroller patent, asserting lack of priority and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of review for claims 1‑9 and 17‑20.

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

· IPR2025-01107

MSN Pharmaceuticals and its Indian affiliate petition PTAB to invalidate 18 claims of Breckenridge’s 2021 dabigatran composition patent, arguing obviousness over Brauns combined with Leane or Sugimoto.

Google LLC v.POINTWISE VENTURES, LLC

· IPR2025-01102

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all twelve claims of Pointwise Ventures’ 8,471,812 patent, alleging obviousness over Oami, Du, and Darrell references. The petition requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.

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

· IPR2025-01093

United Microelectronics has filed an IPR petition challenging ten claims of the ’076 high‑k gate dielectric patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review under 35 U.S.C. §103.

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

· IPR2025-01090

United Microelectronics Corporation has filed an IPR petition challenging six claims of U.S. Patent 8,907,425, which covers stress‑relief structures for MISFETs. The petitioner asserts that combinations of known prior‑art references make the claims obvious under §103. No claim construction is required, and the petition seeks institution of the review.

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

· IPR2025-01027

Geotab has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all twenty claims of Fractus’s ’200 antenna patent, citing obviousness over Dou and Jing and lack of written description for 4G‑related features. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.

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

· PGR2025-00053

Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Halozyme, Inc.'s patent (12195773) based on grounds of enablement and obviousness. The Board found it likely that the claims defining a vast genus of modified polypeptides are unpatentable due to insufficient disclosure regarding solubility and activity prediction.

patent denied · Jun 6, 2025

Albany International Corp. v.Voith Patent GmbH

· IPR2025-01116

Albany International Corp. successfully instituted IPR proceedings against Voith Patent GmbH regarding patent number 11261566, challenging all 15 claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found sufficient evidence to support the Petitioner's arguments that combinations of prior art references render the claimed features predictable in textile manufacturing.

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

· IPR2025-01118

The Director denied institution for multiple IPR petitions filed by Union Electric Company et al. against MES, Inc., preventing a trial from taking place.

patent denied · Jun 6, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01117

The Director denied the institution of multiple IPRs filed by Union Electric Company against MES, Inc., meaning no trial will proceed on the challenged patent claims.

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

· IPR2025-01027

The PTAB has instituted an IPR challenge against Fractus's patent covering antenna design/MFWD technology. Petitioner Geotab Inc. et al. asserted grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), challenging 20 claims based on prior art including Dou, Jing, and Baliarda-543. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the petitioner, moving forward with the trial preparation phase.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 5, 2025

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

· IPR2025-01026

The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the petitioner in its challenge to patent 11031677, which covers multifunction wireless devices and antenna design. The grounds included anticipation (103) and written description/enablement issues related to prior art like Baliarda-543.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC

· PGR2025-00047

Home Depot and H2 Intellect settled their post‑grant review of patent 12,056,736 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding before instituting trial and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Jun 5, 2025

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v.H2 Intellect LLC

· PGR2025-00047

Home Depot and H2 Intellect have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the post‑grant review of Home Depot’s geofencing patent (U.S. 12,056,736). The Board authorized the filing of the motion, ending the proceeding before any merits were decided.

Be Smarter, LLC et al. v.Yondr, Inc.

· IPR2025-00970

Yondr, Inc. filed a preliminary response to an IPR petition by Be Smarter, LLC, arguing that the cited prior art (Samuel, Shin, Simpson) does not anticipate or render obvious the ’788 patent claims and requesting denial of institution.

Coretronic Corporation et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00941

Maxell seeks a discretionary denial of Coretronic and Optoma's IPR on its expired projector patent, arguing that parallel district‑court litigation makes institution wasteful and duplicative.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00888

The USPTO denied OnePlus’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00888 and related cases, upholding the original decision.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

Pantech successfully defended the PTAB Director’s discretionary denial of institution for its LTE/5G patent, arguing lack of obviousness and settled industry expectations. The Board affirmed the denial, leaving the patent intact.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

OnePlus has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its LTE‑5G random‑access patent (U.S. 8,995,372) against Pantech. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and violated the APA, and points to examiner error involving Tenny and Yoo references.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00888

Pantech successfully defended the PTAB Director’s discretionary denial of institution in an IPR concerning its LTE/5G patents, arguing the petitioner’s prior art does not teach key claim limitations and that there is no material examiner error.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

· IPR2025-00888

OnePlus Technology seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against Pantech’s LTE‑Advanced CSI‑RS patent. The petition argues the decision misapplied a new “settled expectations” rule and violated the APA. It also points to examiner error in claim interpretation.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation

The USPTO Director denied OnePlus's request for review of the denial to institute inter partes review against Pantech patents, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pantech Corporation