US PTAB IP Litigation

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00708

Milestone Entertainment filed a preliminary response opposing Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,529,336. The patent owner contends the cited prior art does not disclose key claim limitations and that one reference is not prior art. The Board denied institution of the petition.

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

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Mar 26, 2025

TSMC seeks a Director Review of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR against patent 8,907,425. The patent owner argues the denial was proper and TSMC’s request is procedurally defective. The review request remains pending.

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

PTAB issued a mixed final decision on TSMC’s challenge to patent 8907425, invalidating some claims while upholding others.

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

TSMC seeks a Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial, arguing that the ’425 patent was issued with material errors and that enforcing it would harm U.S. national‑security and economic interests. The petition emphasizes settled expectations and examiner mistakes.

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00713

Milestone Entertainment filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition on the 11,501,607 gaming patent. The owner contends the cited prior art does not disclose key claim elements and that one reference is not prior art. The Board is asked to reject institution.

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

Milestone Entertainment’s sur‑reply rebuts Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition, asserting that Walker’s provisional does not confer prior‑art status, that Milestone’s conception and diligence are well‑documented, and that Kelly fails to disclose key claim limitations.

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

Milestone Entertainment’s preliminary response argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails to show that the cited references disclose the patented dynamic game‑parameter system or provide a motivation to combine them, leading to a request for denial of institution.

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00711

Milestone Entertainment’s preliminary response argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art does not disclose the required game‑processor features and one reference is not prior art. The Board is urged to deny institution.

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

The PTAB denied the petitioners’ requests for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs concerning patents 8,198,686 and 8,907,425.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 26, 2025

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00708

Milestone Entertainment’s sur‑reply argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails on both the Walker prior‑art and Kelly obviousness grounds, citing lack of written‑description support and missing disclosures for key claim limitations.

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00697

USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00697 after settling their dispute and dismissing related district‑court litigation.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Mar 26, 2025

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

patent terminated or settled · Mar 26, 2025

Statistical analysis of PTAB IPR decisions from 2020‑2025 shows an increase in rulings that find at least one claim unpatentable, driven by both §102 and §103 grounds.

USAA Federal Savings Bank v.PACid Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-00697

USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00697 and related proceedings. The settlement was documented via a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice filed in federal court.

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

An email notifies the parties that Director Review requests have been filed for two IPRs involving a semiconductor process patent. The patent owner is limited to a 15‑page response with no new evidence, and the Director will decide on the review.

Dentsply Sirona Inc. v.Osseo Imaging, LLC

· IPR2025-00771

Dentsply Sirona has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Osseo Imaging’s 6,381,301 patent covering dental and orthopedic CT densitometry. The challenger asserts the claims are anticipated or obvious over Arai and Pelc references, especially when combined with Cann and Rothman teachings. The petition seeks a finding that claims 1‑8 and 10‑20 are unpatentable.

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

TSMC has filed an IPR petition against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process’s U.S. Patent 8,907,425 covering semiconductor devices. The petition asserts that claims 1‑15 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00713

Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Milestone Entertainment’s ’607 patent covering online gaming systems with mandated and variable parameters. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over prior art such as Kelly683, Walker, Paulsen, and Schneier143 and seeks institution of the review.

SeaSpine Holdings Corporation et al. v.Jackson, Roger

· IPR2025-00773

SeaSpine petitions the PTAB to invalidate a spinal‑implant patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over long‑standing screw‑thread designs disclosed in Kirschman, Higbee, Johnson, Boschert and a 2005 publication.

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00711

Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Milestone Entertainment’s online‑gaming patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition requests institution under §§325(d) and 314(a).

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Milestone Entertainment’s U.S. Patent 11,393,279, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art gaming systems. The petition seeks institution of the review under §§325(d) and 314(a).

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00708

Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition challenging Milestone Entertainment’s ’336 gaming patent, asserting obviousness over Kelly683 and over Walker combined with Schneier143. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability for 19 claims.

SeaSpine Holdings Corporation et al. v.Jackson, Roger

· IPR2025-00773

The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by SeaSpine Holdings against Roger P. Jackson because the patent owner had disclaimed all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,399,873 B2.

patent instituted · Mar 26, 2025

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC

· IPR2025-00713

Activision Blizzard's attempt to invalidate Milestone Entertainment's gaming patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness over prior art references Kelly and Paulsen.

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC