US PTAB IP Litigation

iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00374

Welch Allyn’s patent survived a director’s discretionary denial after iRhythm’s request for review was rejected. The Board affirmed the Director’s holistic assessment and found no procedural violations.

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.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00369

The PTAB denied Google’s request to rehear its discretionary denial of institution in an IPR against Mullen Industries’ OLED display patent, citing a parallel district‑court trial and weak petition merits. The decision upholds the Director’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).

patent terminated or settled

Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.

· IPR2025-00350

The PTAB granted institution of IPR2025-00350 on June 13, 2025. A director‑review request filed by the patent owner on July 13 was deemed untimely and will not be considered.

LG Electronics Inc. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-00394

LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information, seeking to terminate IPR2025-00394 concerning patent 10,199,072.

patent terminated or settled

AT&T Services, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.

· IPR2025-00395

Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum reached a settlement that led to the termination of an IPR challenge to Patent 7,428,669 before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement confidential.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00368

Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to overturn a discretionary denial of institution for an IPR covering Mullen Industries’ 2022 patent. They contend the Director ignored the patent’s recent issuance, lack of commercialization, and the Sotera stipulation, and misapplied Fintiv factors.

Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.

· IPR2025-00350

The PTAB notified parties that Director Review requests for three IPRs have been received. The petitioner has five business days to submit a concise response limited to the raised issues, with no new evidence allowed.

Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00345

Google’s request for Director Review of the denial to institute an IPR on SoundClear’s 2015 noise‑reduction patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the petitioner failed to overcome settled‑expectations and the discretionary standards under 35 U.S.C. §314.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00366

The PTAB denied Google’s request to rehear its petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ OLED display patent, citing discretionary authority and the existence of a parallel district‑court case. The decision rests on the Fintiv factors and statutory discretion.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00367

The PTAB denied Google’s request for rehearing of its IPR petition against Mullen Industries’ OLED display patent, upholding the Director’s discretionary denial. The Board cited a parallel Samsung district‑court case and the petition’s weak merits as reasons for denial.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00366

Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to overturn a Director’s discretionary denial of an IPR against Mullen Industries’ 2022 patent. They contend the denial ignored settled‑expectations guidance, Fintiv factors, and a Sotera stipulation, and was applied retroactively after the Vidal Memo was rescinded.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00341

Tesla’s petition to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 7,181,743 was denied after the Board found no abuse of discretion. The Board held that the prior‑art reference Welch does not disclose the claimed event‑correlation capabilities.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC

· IPR2025-00332

Samsung and Sinotechnix have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,951,626 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, so the motion is pending.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00365

The PTAB denied Google’s request for rehearing and refused to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ patent, citing the parallel district court trial and discretionary authority. The decision rests on six Fintiv factors and the weakness of the petition’s merits.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00365

Samsung Display’s IPR petition was denied by the PTAB after a Director Review affirmed the Board’s discretionary denial, despite correcting the Board’s statutory analysis of the prior art.

patent terminated or settled

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00340

Tesla challenges Intellectual Ventures’ IPR on patent 6,894,639, arguing the Board correctly applied claim construction and prior art. The Director is urged to deny the patent owner’s request for review, leaving the institution intact.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v.Sinotechnix LLC

· IPR2025-00332

Samsung and Sinotechnix settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,951,626. The Board terminated the proceeding before trial was instituted and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.

Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC

· IPR2025-00365

Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to rehear a Director’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00365 covering Mullen’s 2022 patent. They contend the Board ignored the Vidal Memo’s guidance, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed the rules, leaving 92 claims unchallenged in district court.

iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00363

An email from the PTAB Director informs the parties that a Director Review request has been filed for IPR2025-00363 and related cases, outlining a five‑page, five‑day response window and prohibiting new evidence.

Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.

· IPR2025-00289

The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,865,291 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. All challenged claims (1‑8, 12‑19) are now subject to trial.

iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.

· IPR2025-00363

iRhythm Technologies seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB Acting Director's discretionary denial of its IPR petitions against Welch Allyn’s wearable cardiac‑monitor patents. The petitioner argues the new "settled expectations" rule was applied retroactively, violates precedent, and harms patent quality.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC

· IPR2025-00356

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Samsung's challenge to claims 1‑8 of U.S. Patent 8,808,909 and granted Samsung’s motion to join the earlier IPR filed by LG Energy Solution, consolidating the disputes.