US PTAB IP Litigation

Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v.Georgia Tech Research Corporation

· IPR2025-00384

The USPTO Director denied Murata Manufacturing’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR against Georgia Tech’s patent. The denial hinged on untimely filing and discovery burdens.

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al. v.MES, Inc.

· IPR2025-00281

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES’s 10,596,517 patent covering mercury‑removal sorbents after finding the petitioners’ obviousness and anticipation arguments credible.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00317

Verizon and its partners seek Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against KT Corp.’s 942 patent. They argue the denial violated due process and misapplied Fintiv factors, urging the Board to institute the review.

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

· IPR2025-00354

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks a Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Stratasys’s 8,747,097 patent. The petitioner argues the denial violates statutory requirements and recent guidance on Sotera stipulations. The request highlights examiner error and lack of settled expectations by the patent owner.

patent all challenged claims upheld

Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.

· IPR2025-00372

The USPTO denied Kangxi Communications’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00372, leaving Skyworks Solutions’ patent 9,917,563 unchallenged at the institution stage.

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

· IPR2025-00359

Samsung’s IPR challenge to Molecular Rebar Design’s lithium‑ion battery patent was rejected; the Board found no unpatentable claims after concluding the petitioner’s obviousness arguments were unsupported.

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

· IPR2025-00311

Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks PTAB institution of an IPR against Stratasys’s 3D‑printer patent, arguing the Board properly weighed Fintiv factors and that broad stipulations prevent duplicate litigation. The Patent Owner contests, but the petitioner emphasizes efficiency and fairness.

patent terminated or settled

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

· IPR2025-00311

The USPTO Director denied petitions to review institution decisions in three IPRs involving Stratasys's 3D‑printing patent, leaving the institution rulings intact.

Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.

· IPR2025-00302

Intel, Lenovo, and Motorola filed a motion to dismiss their IPR against Collision Communications. The PTAB granted the motion, dismissing the petition and terminating the proceeding.

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

· IPR2025-00349

The PTAB issued an institution decision for IPR2025-00349 on June 13, 2025. A later director‑review request by the patent owner was filed after the 14‑day deadline and was deemed untimely, so the Board will not consider it.

patent terminated or settled

Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2025-00348

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive streaming patent and granted joinder of Czech challenger Webgroup and NKL Associates, linking the case to a prior IPR over the same claims.

International Business Machines Corporation v.Croga Innovations Ltd.

· IPR2025-00379

IBM and Croga Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,178,104. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petition before a trial was instituted.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00322

Nutanix filed a response defending the PTAB Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Tessell. The owner contends the Director properly exercised discretion, that assignor estoppel does not apply, and that no right to institution exists.

Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2025-00347

The USPTO denied Webgroup Czech Republic's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs challenging DISH Technologies patents.

Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2025-00347

The PTAB instituted inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent (claims 1‑16) and granted joinder to Webgroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates, aligning the case with the earlier fuboTV/MasterClass IPR.

C.R. Bard, Inc. et al. v.Medline Industries, LP

· IPR2025-00402

C.R. Bard and Medline have jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit disclosure to federal agencies only.

Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.Skyworks Solutions, Inc.

· IPR2025-00373

The USPTO Director denied the petition for review of its decision not to institute an IPR against Skyworks' patent, leaving the institution denial in place.

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

· IPR2025-00374

The Director denied iRhythm's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00374, leaving the denial of institution in place.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00298

Nutanix filed a request for director review, urging the PTAB to deny Tessell’s IPR on grounds of unfair dealing, settled expectations, and prior art already examined. The petition argues that the inventors are attempting to profit twice from the same invention.

Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.

· IPR2025-00297

Microsoft and EyesMatch filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking federal statutes. The Board had previously authorized the filing, and the parties seek limited disclosure only to government agencies or parties with good cause.

Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00345

Google has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on SoundClear’s decade‑old audio‑processing patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations guidance, created an unlawful time bar, and ignored the merits and district‑court stays.

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

· IPR2025-00349

An email from the PTAB Director informs parties of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00349, -00350, and -00351, outlining a five‑page, five‑day response limit and prohibiting new evidence.

Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00344

Google has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against SoundClear’s decade‑old echo‑cancellation patent. The petitioner contends the Board improperly created a time‑based bar and ignored the district‑court stays and merits of the petition.