US PTAB IP Litigation

Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00344

Google’s request for Director Review of an IPR against SoundClear’s LED‑notification patent was denied. The Board affirmed that settled expectations and Fintiv factors justified the discretionary denial.

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

· IPR2025-00354

Stratasys, the owner of U.S. Pat. 8,747,097 covering 3‑D printing technology, has responded to a challenger’s request for Director Review, arguing the request is untimely and lacks a statutory basis. The patent owner urges the Director to deny the review.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00340

Tesla’s request for rehearing of the Director Review decision was denied after the Board found the petitioner failed to justify inconsistent claim‑construction positions across the IPR and district court.

patent instituted

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

· IPR2025-00278

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of MES, Inc.’s mercury‑removal patent after Berkshire Hathaway Energy demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness and anticipation grounds.

Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.

· IPR2025-00296

Microsoft and EyesMatch have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,982,110, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00291

The PTAB Director denied Google and other petitioners' request for review of the institution denial in several IPRs, including the case involving Pegasus Wireless Innovation's patent 10,594,460.

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

· IPR2025-00393

LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,818,449 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00290

The PTAB denied the petitioners' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case covering patent 10,721,118 owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00290

Google and other carriers’ request for director review of the PTAB’s denial of institution in a wireless patent case was rejected for lacking a valid basis and introducing new arguments.

Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC

· IPR2025-00340

Tesla seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on its data‑analytics patent. The Patent Owner argues the Board ignored required consistency in claim construction and the indefiniteness of claim terms, making the institution improper.

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

· IPR2025-00334

Samsung and Sinotechnix settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,412,913 before the trial was instituted. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.

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

· IPR2025-00334

Samsung and Sinotechnix have settled their OLED display patent dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.

Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.

· IPR2025-00284

Lenovo and Motorola filed a motion to dismiss their IPR against Collision Communications, arguing good cause to withdraw before institution, citing prior PTAB precedent and a denied related Samsung IPR.

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

· IPR2025-00376

The USPTO Director denied iRhythm's request for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs against Welch Allyn, leaving the institution denials in place.

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

· IPR2025-00351

Stingray Group and its affiliate have filed a response urging the PTAB Director to deny a late request by the patent owner that includes unauthorized new evidence. The petitioners argue procedural violations and cite Fintiv discretionary factors to support denial.

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

· IPR2025-00281

Berkshire Hathaway Energy’s subsidiaries IPL and WPL settled with patent owner Birchtech Corp., prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review of patent 10,596,517 for those parties.

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

· IPR2025-00281

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and BirchTech Corp. have settled their IPR dispute and jointly moved to keep the settlement agreement confidential under Board rules.

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

· IPR2025-00281

Berkshire Hathaway’s energy affiliates and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,596,517. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to MidAmerican, citing settlement and lack of a merits decision.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00322

Tessell, Inc. petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPR against Nutanix, arguing the Director misapplied assignor estoppel under 35 U.S.C. §314(a). The brief cites Federal Circuit precedent that assignor estoppel cannot block IPRs.

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

· IPR2025-00280

MidAmerican Energy and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,596,517 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review as to MidAmerican. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.

Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00345

The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for a review of the decision to deny institution of two IPRs against SoundClear Technologies’ patent 9,031,259. The order leaves the institution denial in place.

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

· IPR2025-00377

iRhythm has requested Director Review of Welch Allyn’s patent 8,214,007 in IPR2025-00377. The patent owner may file a brief response limited to the raised issues within five days, with no new evidence allowed.

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

· IPR2025-00280

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and WEC Energy Group have settled the IPR concerning patent 10,596,517 and seek to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.