US PTAB IP Litigation
8,574 annotated decisions
Page 83 of 358 · 8,574 total
patent
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00423
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and affiliates seek PTAB Director review to block an IPR on their mercury‑control patent, arguing the Board’s institution is inefficient and its privity analysis is legally flawed.
patent denied
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00368
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of institution in IPR2025-00368, finding that overlapping district‑court litigation and weak petition merits justified the denial. Google’s request for rehearing was rejected.
patent terminated or settled
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00425
Energy utilities settled their PTAB disputes with BirchTech, prompting the Board to terminate the IPRs for the settling parties and keep the settlement agreements confidential. Remaining petitioners stay in the proceeding.
patent denied
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00368
Samsung Display sought an IPR of Mullen Industries' 8,314,547 B2 display patent. The PTAB denied institution, and the Director affirmed the denial, leaving the patent intact.
patent denied
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
· IPR2025-00384
The PTAB upheld the Director’s discretionary denial of institution for Murata’s challenge to Georgia Tech’s ’914 patent, finding no legal error in the decision.
patent
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation
· IPR2025-00383
Murata challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against a Georgia Tech RF amplifier patent, arguing the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and ignored strong merits and Fintiv factors.
patent
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.
· IPR2025-00389
Ningde Amperex Technology seeks to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR filed by battery maker Zhuhai CosMX, arguing the Board relied on impermissible expert testimony and ignored teaching‑away prior art.
patent
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
· IPR2025-00381
Vermeer’s preliminary response contends that Kubota’s petition relies on KR996, which does not disclose the pivotal linkage to the loader support required by the ’891 patent. The owner argues the petition’s modifications are non‑obvious and urges denial of institution.
patent
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00367
Google and co‑petitioners seek rehearing of the PTAB Director’s denial to institute an IPR challenging Mullen’s 2022 wireless‑location patent. They argue the denial misapplied statutory frameworks and ignored a Sotera stipulation.
patent denied
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00367
Samsung’s petition to invalidate a key display patent was denied by the PTAB. The Director affirmed the Board’s discretion under § 314(a), finding no compelling merits and correcting the Board’s interpretation of pre‑AIA prior‑art rules.
patent denied
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
· IPR2025-00366
The Director reviewed the PTAB's denial of institution for Samsung's IPR against Mullen Industries' 8,314,547 patent and affirmed the denial. The Director corrected the Board’s statutory interpretation of pre‑AIA §102(b) but upheld the discretionary denial under §314(a).
patent denied
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00363
The USPTO Director denied iRhythm’s petitions for review of the USPTO’s discretionary denial to institute several IPRs against Welch Allyn, leaving the original institution denials in place.
patent all challenged claims upheld
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
· IPR2025-00356
Samsung’s challenge to Molecular Rebar Design’s lithium‑ion battery patent was rejected. The PTAB held that none of the eight claims were obvious over the cited prior art, leaving the patent fully intact.
patent denied
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00363
iRhythm’s request to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for its cardiac monitor patent was met with a detailed response from Welch Allyn, asserting the Director’s holistic discretionary denial was proper under §314(a). The Board’s denial stands pending any further review.
patent terminated or settled
International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
· IPR2025-00379
IBM and Croga Innovations filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 11,178,104. The parties cite statutory authority to protect the agreement’s commercial details.
patent
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00378
iRhythm Technologies filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of five IPR petitions on the basis of a new “settled expectations” rule. The petitioner contends the rule is retroactive, violates precedent, and would harm patent quality. The request seeks vacatur of the denial and institution of the IPRs.
patent
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00378
The PTAB denied iRhythm’s petition to institute an IPR against Welch Allyn’s cardiac‑monitor patent. Welch Allyn’s counsel filed an authorized response asserting the Director’s holistic assessment was proper and that the petitioner offered no new evidence. The request for review is therefore expected to be denied.
patent instituted
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
· IPR2025-00357
The Board instituted an inter partes review of Samsung's petition covering claims 1‑5 of patent 8,968,924 and granted Samsung’s motion to join an existing IPR, terminating the separate proceeding.
patent denied
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00377
The USPTO Director denied iRhythm's request for a rehearing of the institution decision in its IPR against Welch Allyn's cardiac monitoring patent. The denial leaves the original institution denial intact.
patent terminated or settled
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.
· IPR2025-00423
Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s power subsidiaries settled with Birchtech, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR as to those petitioners while the case remains open for the remaining parties. The settlement agreement was deemed business‑confidential.
patent denied
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00378
The PTAB denied iRhythm's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00378 and related cases, keeping Welch Allyn's patent intact. The decision rests on the Board's discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
patent denied
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
· IPR2025-00373
Skyworks successfully defended its wireless front‑end module patent as the PTAB denied institution of the IPR. The Board cited all six Fintiv factors and the patent owner’s settled expectations to justify the discretionary denial.
patent denied
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00376
iRhythm's request to overturn the PTAB Director's denial of institution was rejected. The Board affirmed that the denial was based on a holistic review and that the petition lacked evidence and new factual support.
patent
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
· IPR2025-00377
iRhythm challenges the PTAB Acting Director’s denial of five IPR petitions on the ground that a newly issued ‘settled expectations’ rule was applied retroactively. The company argues the rule conflicts with precedent and statutory limits, and would burden the PTAB and stifle innovation.
