US PTAB IP Litigation

The PTAB Director denied a petition for review of institution decisions in four IPRs, including Stratasys's 3D‑printing patent (US 10,569,466). The denial leaves the institution decisions intact.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

The PTAB Director has issued a review request for IPR2025-00438, directing the petitioner to file a concise response limited to the raised issues and prohibiting new evidence.

GD Energy Products, LLC v.Kerr Machine Company

· PGR2025-00031

GD Energy Products has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑15 of Kerr Machine Co.'s 12,152,582 pump patent, arguing obviousness over several prior‑art pump designs and indefiniteness of claim 15.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00583

Apple has filed a petition to institute an IPR against ImberaTek’s U.S. Pat. No. 11,071,207, asserting that claims 1‑6 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that PTAB discretion should not block institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00578

Apple petitions an IPR to invalidate 36 claims of ImberaTek's 7,989,944 patent covering embedded components in circuit boards, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

International Business Machines Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.

· IPR2025-00591

IBM has filed a petition for inter partes review of VirtaMove’s U.S. Patent 7,784,058, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art relating to shared libraries and OS kernel functions. The petition details two grounds of obviousness and argues against discretionary denial.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00581

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ImberaTek’s ’201 patent on embedding components in a baseboard, asserting that the claim is anticipated or obvious over six prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should not deny institution and that all Fintiv factors favor proceeding.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00585

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Stratasys' 3D‑printing patent covering RFID‑based material tagging, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging institution of the review.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00584

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 14 claims of ImberaTek’s ’816 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art packaging references. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00582

Apple files an IPR seeking to invalidate ImberaTek's 9,107,324 patent on circuit modules, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

Apple Inc. v.ImberaTek, LLC

· IPR2025-00575

Apple filed an IPR seeking to invalidate ImberaTek’s 7609527 patent covering electronic modules, asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00542

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Mobile Data Technologies' patent covering mobile device content sharing, asserting obviousness over prior Symbian forum and gaming system references.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Mobile Data Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-00541

Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Mobile Data Technologies’ ’348 patent, arguing they are obvious over early web‑community and proxy‑server references. The petition also challenges the patent owner’s claim constructions and argues against discretionary denial.

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

patent instituted · Jun 2, 2025

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging Stratasys’s 3‑D‑printing patent (US 10,569,466), asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and reject discretionary denial arguments.

GD Energy Products, LLC v.Kerr Machine Company

· PGR2025-00031

GD Energy Products successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Kerr Machine Company's pump patent, alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found it more likely than not that at least one claim would be unpatentable over various prior art references related to fluid end assemblies.

patent denied · Jun 2, 2025

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00585

The PTAB denied institution for IPR2025-00585, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any asserted claims were unpatentable. The denial hinged on ambiguity in claim language and lack of teaching in the prior art regarding material property calculations.

patent instituted · Jun 2, 2025

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.

The PTAB instituted an IPR trial, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the petitioner, Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., against Stratasys, Inc. The grounds centered on 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 regarding data tag-based automation in 3D printing.

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00413

Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00413 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 9,045,101. The Board had previously instituted the review, but the parties seek early termination to conserve resources.

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00413

Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,045,101, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.

patent · Jun 1, 2025

Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC

· IPR2025-00413

Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential while seeking to terminate the IPR over patent 9,045,101.

patent · Jun 1, 2025

MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

· IPR2025-00243

MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information, separate from the patent file.

MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC

· IPR2025-00243

MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,769,316, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR before the Board decided any merits.