US PTAB IP Litigation

Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. v.Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd.

· IPR2025-00385

The PTAB denied Zhuhai CosMX Battery’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025‑00385 concerning battery patent 10,964,927. The denial leaves the original decision that the IPR was not instituted intact.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00292

Google and other carriers sought a Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Pegasus Wireless. The Board found the request lacked a proper basis and introduced new arguments, and therefore denied the review.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00293

Google and other U.S. carriers have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for a patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. They argue the denial violated due process and ignored favorable factors such as a Sotera stipulation and economic interests.

Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.

· IPR2025-00276

Normshield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement that led the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00276 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00292

The USPTO Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the PTAB's decision not to institute several telecom-related IPRs against Pegasus Wireless Innovation. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.

Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00344

The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00344, leaving the institution decision unchanged.

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

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp settled their PTAB IPRs, leading to termination of the case for MidAmerican Energy while the dispute remains for the other petitioners.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00292

Google and other carriers filed a request for director review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against a telecom patent owned by Pegasus Wireless Innovation. The petition argues the Board abused discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and misapplied Fintiv factors.

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

MidAmerican Energy Company and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public policy reasons to end the proceeding before any merits decision.

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

· IPR2025-00378

The Board acknowledged receipt of Director Review requests for several IPRs, including IPR2025‑00378, and instructed the patent owner to file a limited response within five business days. No new evidence may be submitted.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00291

Google’s request for a Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s patent was rejected. The Board found the petitioners offered no statutory basis and raised new arguments, affirming the Director’s Fintiv analysis as reasonable.

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

The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable. Petitioner Imperative Care proved anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller and Garrison, with the Board emphasizing that the claimed filament must be flexible.

patent instituted

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

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success. All challenged claims (1‑7, 9‑10, 15‑18, 20‑24) are now under review.

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00291

Google and other U.S. carriers have filed a petition for Director Review, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00291 concerning patent 10,594,460. They argue the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, retroactively changed policy, and violated due process. The petition seeks to have the denial vacated and the IPR instituted.

patent instituted

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

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim.

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

WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. have settled their IPR dispute and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.

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

· IPR2025-00281

Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Pacificorp’s IPRs against BirchTech were terminated for MidAmerican Energy after the parties settled, with the settlement agreement kept confidential.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Google LLC et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC

· IPR2025-00290

Google and other carriers filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against patent 10,721,118. They contend the Board abused discretion, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed policy, seeking a review of the denial.

Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.

· IPR2025-00232

The PTAB found all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent unpatentable, adopting broader claim constructions and granting Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 21‑26.

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

The PTAB denied Imperative Care’s petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 11,744,691, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board concluded the cited prior art did not disclose the required negative‑pressure pump configuration.

Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.

· IPR2025-00322

Tessell, Inc. filed a fee transmittal to request Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00322 concerning Nutanix’s patent 11,010,336. The filing includes payment of $452 and asserts small and micro entity status.

Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.

· IPR2025-00345

Google seeks Director Review of its IPR challenges to SoundClear’s patent, prompting a brief response window for the patent owner.

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

Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements treated as business confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related Board rules. The request aims to keep the settlement terms separate from the public patent record.